Skip to main content

Full text of "Business meetings of legislation resulting in public laws /"

See other formats


VV t i^/Wt 



\* 



s> 






94th Congress 
2d Session 



COMMITTEE PRINT 



BUSINESS MEETINGS OP LEGISLATION 
RESULTING IN PUBLIC LAWS 



COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

U.S. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES 

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 










<-v 






DECEMBER 1976 ^AN 

I*- 

\%-, ; - •; V 



istr 



°*t 



'<l T l^>' 



"sss///''* 



rinted for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 



GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
"SHINGTON : 1976 



I 



COMMITTEE OX AGRICULTURE 



THOMAS S. FOLEY, 
W. B. POAQE, Texas. Vice Chainnan 
E de la GARZA, Texas 
JOSEPH P. VIGORITO, Pennsylvania 
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 
ED JONES, Tennessee 
JOHN MELCHER, Montana 
DAWSON MATHIS, Georgia 
BOB BERGLAND, Minnesota 
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California 
DAVID R. BOWEN, Mississippi 
CHARLES ROSE, North Carolina 
JERRI LITTON. Missouri 1 
JOHN BRECKINRIDGE, Kentucky 
FREDERICK W. RICHMOND, New York 
RICHARD NOLAN, Minnesota 
JAMES WEAVER, Oregon 
ALYIN BALDUS, Wisconsin 
JOHN KREBS, California 
TOM HARK IN. Iowa 
JACK HIGHTOWER, Texas 
BERKLEY BEDELL, Iowa 
MATTHEW F. McHDGH, New York 
GLENN ENGLISH, Oklahoma 
FLOYD J. FITHIAN. Indiana 
JOHN W. JENRETTE, Jr., South Carolina 
NORMAN E. D'AMOURS, New Hampshire 2 
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas 3 



Washington, Chairman 

WILLIAM C. WAMPLER, Virginia, 

Ranking Minority Member 
KEITH G. SEBELIUS, Kansas 
PALL FINDLEY, Illinois 
CHARLES THONE. Nebraska 
STEVEN D. SYMMS, Idaho 
JAMES P. JOHNSON, Colorado 
EDWARD K. MADIGAN, Illinois 
I'L'I BR A. PEYSER, New York 
MARGARET M. HECKLER, Massachusetts 
JAMES M. JEFFORDS. Vermont 
RICHARD KELLY, Florida 
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 
TOM HAGEDORN. Minnesota 
W. HENSON MOORE, Louisiana 



Professional Staff 

Fowler C. West, Staff Director 

Robert M. Bor, Counsel 

Hyde H. Murray, Counsel 

John R. Kramer, Special Counsel 

L. T. Easley, Press Assistant 



1 Deceased August 3. 1976. 
- Resigned from Committee April 8, 1976. 
;ied December 17, 1975. 



(II) 



CONTENTS 



S. 1617 

Page 

Control and Eradicate Plant Pests 1 

Public Law 94-231, March 15, 1976 

S. 154.') 
Peanut Allotment Transfer 15 

Public Law 94-247, March 25, 1976 

H.R. 6346 

Title V Extension. Rural Development Act of 1972 23 

Public Law 94-259, April 5, 1976 

H.R. 7656 

Beef Research and Information Act 41 

Public Law 94-294, May 28, 1976 

S. 532 

Wool Act Payments 85 

Public Law 94-312, June 21, 1976 

S. 18 

African Honeybee Control 91 

Public Law 94-319, June 25, 1976 

S. 2853 

Emergency Food Stamp Vendor Accountability Act of 1976 107 

Public Law 94-339, July 5, 1976 

H.R. 10930 

Cotton Research and Promotion Act Amendment 123 

Public Law 94-366, July 14, 1976 

S. 1526 

Land Acquisition Funds for Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Minnesota l.~>1 

Public Law 94-384, August 13, 1976 

H.R. 15068 

Emergency Lease and Transfer of Tobacco Allotments 159 

Public Law 94-445, October 1, 1976 

S. 3052 

Orientation of Dependents of USDA Employees in Foreign Assignments— 167 
Public Law 94-449, October 1. 1976 

H.R. 10339 

Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976 1 S 1 

Public Law 94-463. October 8, 1976 

(in) 



IV 

U.K. 1.1059 

Pan 

Emergency Livestock Credit At Extension 215 

Public Lt« '.'i 517, October L5, I 

ILK. 10133 

eve! i SDA Positions l'l'7 

Public La* 94 561, October L9, 1976 

H.R. 12207 

R I : a Technical Amendments 249 

Public I. aw 94 .".7". October 20, 1976 



CONTROL AND ERADICATE PLANT PESTS 



MONDAY, JULY 28, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee on Department Operations, 

Investigations and Oversight 
of the Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met at 2 :10 p.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1302, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. E. cle la Garza (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present : Representatives Brown, Breckinridge, Richmond, Weaver, 
Harkin, MeHugh, D'Amours, Thone, and Grassley. 

Staff present: Robert M. Bor, counsel; John E. Hogan, associate 
counsel ; Robert Palmer and Jerry Jorgensen, staff consultants, Sub- 
committee on Department Operations, Investigations and Oversight ; 
Norman Gay, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice; 
Perry Shaw, staff assistant. 

Mr. de la Garza. We will begin action on H.R. 6403. It covers a long 
list of pests. 

The emergency nature now is the Mediterranean fruit fly coming 
toward the border. It is disastrous to the citrus industry. 

Heretofore, the legislation covered Mexico, but now they have found 
infestations of this Mediterranean fruit fly in El Salvador and Costa 
Rica, coming toward Mexico. That is the reason for the legislation, to 
enlarge the authority of the Department to go into other countries. 
They have suggested amendments which are all technical in nature. 

[The bill H.R. 6403 and the U.S. Department of Agriculture re- 
port follow :] 

[H.R. 6403, 94th Cong., 1st Sess.] 

A BILL To clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to control and eradicate 

plant pests 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That section 102 of the Act of September 21, 
1944 (58 Stat. 735, 7 U.S.C. 147a), as amended, is further amended to read as 
follows : 

"Sec. 102. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture either independently or in coopera- 
tion with States or political subdivisions thereof, farmers' associations, and sim- 
ilar organizations, and individuals, is authorized to carry out operations or 
measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, or to prevent or retard the spread 
of plant pests, meaning any living stage of any insects, mites, nematodes, slugs, 
snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate animals, bacteria, fungi, other parasitic 
plants or reproductive parts thereof, viruses, or any organisms similar to or 
allied with any of the foregoing, or any infectious substances, which can directly 
or indirectly injure or cause disease or damage in any plants or parts thereof, 
or any processed, manufactured, or other products of plants. 

"(b) The Secretary of Agriculture is further authorized to cooperate with 
the Governments of Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, 

(1) 



Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, or the local authorities thereof, in 
carrying out necessary surveys and control operations in those countries in con- 
nection with the eradication, suppression, control and prevention or retardation 
of the spread oi' plant pests. In performing the operations <»r measures herein 
authorized, the cooperating foreign country, State, or local agency shall he 
responsible for the authority necessary to carry out the operation or measures 
on all lands and properties within the foreign country or State other than those 
owned or controlled by the Federal Government and for such other facilities 
and means as in the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture are necessary. 
As used in this section, the term 'State' includes the District of Columbia and 
the territories and possessions of the United States. 

'(c) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate such rules 
and regulations and use such means as he may deem necessary to provide for 
the inspection of plants and plant products offered for exj>ort or transiting the 
United States and to certify to shippers and interested parties as to the freedom 
of such products from plant pests according to the sanitary requirements of the 
foreign countries to which such products may he exported, or to the freedom 
from exposure to plant pests while in transit through the United States. 

'• ( d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as the Congress 
may annually determine to be necessary to enable the Secretary of Agriculture 
to carry out the provisions of this section. Unless otherwise specifically author- 
ized, or provided for in appropriations, no part of such sums shall be used to pay 
the cost or value of property injured or destroyed.". 

Sec. 2. Section 1 of the Act of October 6', 1917 (40 Stat. 374; 7 U.S.C. 145) 
is hereby repealed. 

Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, D.C., July 18, 1915. 
Hon. Thomas S. Foley, 
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture. 
House of Representatives. 

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your request for a report on H.R. 
G403, a bill "To clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to control 
and eradicate plant pests." 

This Department recommends that the bill be enacted, if amended as suggested 
in the attachment to this report. These amendments are technical changes de- 
signed to clarify the intent of the bill. 

The bill would amend provisions in the Organic Act of the Department of 
Agriculture approved September 21, 1944, as amended (7 U.S.C. 147a), to substi- 
tute for the reference to "insect pests, plant diseases, and nematodes" in section 
102(a) a broader list of general classes of pests, which conforms to the definition 
of "plant pest" in section 102(c) of the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa 
(c)). This change will permit the Secretary to deal with threats to American 
agriculture which may be posed by pests not now covered by the Organic Act. 
They include, among other pests, spider mites, slugs, and snails that can injure 
or cause disease or damage in plants, plant parts, and plant products. Specific 
authority would be provided by section 102(a) of the bill for detection of plant 
pests in the United States. 

The bill would a's > extend the Secretary's present authority under the Act to 
cooperate with foreign authorities, to permit cooperation with authorities of 
Canada. Colombia, and the Central American countries, and to "plant pests" gen- 
erally. The Organic Act now auihorizes such cooperation only with respect to 
Mexico and only for specified pests. 

The bill would also make discretionary the Secretary's authority to provide 
phytosanitary inspection and certification service for domestic plants and plant 
products for export, and would extend such authority to inspection and certifica- 
tion of any plants or plant products offered for export or transiting the United 
States. 

The bill would repeal provisions in the Act of October 6, 1917 (7 U.S.C. 145) 
for cooperation with Mexico and adjacent States in extermination of pink boll- 
worm infestations in Mexico, and related operations. This provision would no 
longer be needed if the bill is enacted because the provisions of the Organic Act 
as amended by the bill would include authority for the activities provided for 
in the repealed provisions of the 1917 Act. 

The Department supports the broadened authority permitting the Secretary to 
cooperate with neighboring nations in detecting, controlling, or eradicating plant 
pests. Implementation of specific programs, however, will depend upon unknown 



3 

events and upon the development of criteria to define the appropriate Federal 
role and for assessing the absolute and relative worthiness of possible Federal 
undertakings in terms of their cost and associated results (both level and distri- 
bution). The Department presently has a study underway to systematically 
evaluate the implications of alternative Federal roles in cooperative insect con- 
trol activities, to select the most appropriate alternative and to develop pro- 
cedures and criteria for assessing the benefit/cost relationships. This study is 
expected to be very useful in deciding what, where, and how much control should 
be undertaken by the Federal Government in this country and can be expected 
to guide similar activities that might be undertaken in association with neigh- 
boring nations. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the 
presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. 
Sincerely, 

Earl L. Butz, Secretary. 

Attachment. 

Recommended Amendments to H.R. 6403 

On page 1, at line 11, insert a period after "pests" and delete all of subsection 
(a) thereafter. 
On page 2, at line 14, before the word "eradication" insert "detection,". 
On page 2, at line 19, delete "operation" and insert "operations". 
On page 2, at line 16, designate the second sentence of subsection (b) as 
(c), and delete the last sentence of subsection (b). 
Insert a new subsection (d) as follows : 
" '(d) As used in this section — 

'(1) "Plant pest" means any living stage of: Any insects, mites, 
nematodes, slugs, snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate animals, bac- 
teria, fungi, other parasitic plants or reproductive parts thereof, viruses, 
or any organisms similar to or allied with any of the foregoing, or any 
infectious substances, which can directly or indirectly injure or cause 
disease or damage in any plants or parts thereof, or any processed, 
manufactured, or other products of plants. 

'(2) "Living stage" includes the egg, pupal, and larval stages as well 
as any other living stage. 

'(3) "State" includes the District of Columbia and the territories 
and possessions of the United States." 
On page 3, at line 1, change "(c)" to "(e)"; and at line 11, change "(d)" to 
"(f)". 

On page 3, at line 7, delete "sanitary" and insert in lieu thereof 
"phytosanitary". 

Mr. de la Garza. I might explain the major one, which would be 
in the copy that you have; about half-way down the page where it 
has small "d" in parentheses. 

This enlarges now to cover items that were not covered in the orig- 
inal legislation. 

A further definition of plant pests is what it says. 

It adds a new section 3 at the bottom of the page. It covers in differ- 
ent wording an amendment which was attached to the Senate bill by 
Senator Tower from Texas. He was concerned that an animal tick or 
a fever tick was not covered. So, he added "and animals." The word- 
ing which the Department now recommends is "any communicable 
diseases of animals''. They say that this will cover the problem that 
Senator Tower had. 

[The section 3 to which Mr. de la Garza refers follows :] 

Sec. 3. Section 1 of the Act of February 28, 1947, as amended (61 Stat. 7. 80 
Stat. 330, 85 Stat. 418; U.S.C. 114b), is further amended by (1) inserting in the 
first sentence after the words "any communicable disease of animals" the words 
"or vectors thereof", and (2) inserting after "Canada" a comma and "the 
Bahama Islands, the Greater Antilles, and the Lesser Antilles, and with inter- 
national organizations or associations", and (3) by deleting "British Honduras" 
and inserting in lieu thereof "Belize". 



4 

Mr. de la Garza. The bill, by the way. is approved by OMB and by 
the Department. 

The other question is that, by specifying Mexico, it adds Nicaragua, 
Panama, El Salvador, and so forth. The Senate amended it to say 
"Western Hemisphere." 

You heard the explanation of Dr. Mulhern. (Committee hearing, 
Serial Xo. 94-DD.) He put it in the perspective of dealing with OMB 
and that, if you put in "Western Hemisphere," then OMB would be 
concerned with enlarged coverage. He suggested that they might add 
figures for each country and, if they do that, this balloons any prospec- 
tive expenditure way up. The Department is very concerned and is 
ready to work on this problem. 

They have funds previously authorized and appropriated to combat 
this problem to the extent that they already have. They just need 
legislation to enlarge the scope of their operation so that they could 
go into Costa Rica and El Salvador. 

Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, is there any reason for not including 
insect pests along with plant pests in this legislation ? 

I am thinking particularly of the potential of an invasion which 
I have noted in the press recently of the African bee which seems 
to come in from Brazil and which seems to be a violent type of honey- 
bee which has an aggressive nature. It threatens our own domestic bees 
which are peaceful. 

Mr. de la Garza. What does this bee attack ? 

Mr. Brown. It threatens the domestic bee in this country because 
it is apparently more aggressive. 

Mr. de la Garza. There is more legislation which covers animal 
diseases and pests. I am not sure now about whether the bee would fit 
or not. 

We would have to have counsel speak to this. Where would this fit ? 
It would not fit as an animal pest. 

Mr. Bor. Are we talking about the killer bee? 

Mr. Hogan. Yes. 

Mr. Bor. The matter of the killer bee would fall into the jurisdiction 
of the full committee. 

Mr. de la Garza. I don't know where it fits. 

Mr. Bor. I think there is some separate legislation which has been 
introduced and deals with the killer bee. 

Mr. Hogan. The chairman has introduced a separate bill covering 
the killer bee. 

Mr. Bor. I think I have heard there were some hearings which were 
intended to deal with the killer bee legislation. 

Mr. Brown. I was unaware of that. I am sorry I brought it up. 

Mr. de la Garza. I am glad of it. I would certainly have no objec- 
tion to covering it, but if there is legislation before the full committee 
and if it has been introduced by the chairman, then I guess it is being 
taken care of. 

Would there be any objection from the members of the subcom- 
mittee to consider these amendments en bloc as they appear on this 
page? 

They are technical in nature with the exception of section 3, which 
adds "communicable diseases of animals.'" This is an addition. The 
others are technical in nature. 



If there is no objection then, we will consider the suggested amend- 
ments approved to the bill. 

Mr. Richmond. I move that we report the bill to the full committee 
with the amendments approved en bloc. 

Mr. de la Garza. It will so be done. 

[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/lawingsOOunit 



CONTROL AND ERADICATE PLANT PESTS 



WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Committee ox Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10 :25 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present : representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Mathis, Bergland, Brown, Bowen, 
Litton, Breckinridge, Richmond, Nolan, Weaver. Baldus, Krebs, 
Harkin, Hightower, Bedell, McHugh, English, Jenrette. D'Amours, 
Wampler, Sebelius, Findley, Thone, Symms, Madigan, Peyser, Heck- 
ler, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn, and Moore. 

Staff present : Robert M. Bor and Hyde H. Murray, counsels ; John 
E. Hogan, associate counsel; Steve Allen, staff assistant; Norman Gay 
and Roxie Burris, staff consultants, Subcommittee on Oilseeds and 
Rice; L. T. Easley, press assistant; Glenda Temple and Mary Jarratt, 
staff assistants. 

Mr. Poage. We will consider H.R. 6403, the control of the Mediter- 
ranean fruit fly. This was reported by Mr. de la Garza's subcommittee. 

Mr. de la Garza. The legislation now names the country with which 
we can now enter into agreements. 

There has been an extension of the area where the fly is now found 
in Central America. This legislation extends it now without name 
to Central America. The USDA can enter into cooperative agreements 
for the control or eradication of this Mediterranean fruit fly. 

It doesn't do anything to the present law, except that it extends the 
territory where they may make agreements with other countries. 

Mr. Poage. Is there any discussion? 

Mr. de la Garza. There was no objection from any source, including 
the administration. 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. 'de la Garza, what section in here provides that the 
countries can make agreements? The bill as it now stands on line 9. 
page 2, provides for Canada. Honduras, and so forth 

Mr. de la Garza. Right. 

They add the Bahama Islands, the Greater Antilles, and the Lesser 
Antilles. 

Mr. Kelly. Would you have objection to amending that to provide 
"governments of the Western Hemisphere." without naming the spe- 
cific countries, so that if the fly should make an appearance in another 
country, then it wouldn't be necessary to change the law \ 

I see no merit in limiting the negotiation to a particular country in 
the Western Hemisphere. 

(7) 



8 

Mr. Phage. The Chair is L r '>inir to hold that if there is question about 
any of these bills that we hope can £o on the suspension calendar, then 
we will pass them over until the end and take up those about which 
there is no debate. 

Mr. de n.\ Garza. The reason that we are not doinir that was because 
the Senate bill had already been passed. We have had a recent infesta- 
tion in California. The funds are already appropriated, and the ur- 
gency to get on with it was that the Senate had already passed the bill. 

Mr. Kelly. Do you object 

Mr. Poage. I will lay this aside, if there is a question about it. until 
we have acted on those about which there may not be questions. 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to get an answer to the 
question. 

Mr. Poage. We are trying to pass as many of these as we can. We will 
come back to this bill, but the Chair is not going to entertain any 
further discussion of any of these bills where there is objection to 
them — until we have completed those on which there may not be dis- 
cussion or objection. 

We want to get some of these on the calendar, and we are going to 
spend the rest of the afternoon here, if we don't watch out. 

[At this point the committee discussed other business.] 

Mr. Poage. Mr. Kelly, you are recognized. 

Mr. de la Garza. Why don't we take the arboretum first? 

Mr. Krebs. I object to the present procedure. 

Mr. Poage. There has been a question to discuss every one of the 
bills. 

Mr. Krebs. May I be heard on this matter? 

Mr. Poage. Mr. Kelly is recognized. 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. de la Garza, I do recognize that the Senate has 
passed a bill. 

Is it your opinion that we should alter the bill so that it would cover 
all of the countries of the Western Hemisphere? If it did. would it 
cause any unreasonable delay ? 

Mr. de la Garza. I have been informed that the Senate wording was 
what the gentleman suggests. It was our hope to pick up the Senate 
bill which if we do will satisfy what you are suggesting. 

Mr. Kelly. And you think that you will wind up with that ? If we 
pass it as it is then we will wind up with the result that my amendment 
suggests ? 

Mr. de la Garza. Yes. 

Where is the Senate bill ? 

Mr. Bor. The Senate bill has been referred to this committee for 
consideration. The Senate bill is S. 1617. It has three differences as 
compared with the provisions in the bill that was reported by the 
subcommittee. 

[The billS. 1617 follows:] 

[S. 1G17. 94th Cong., 1st sess.] 

A BILL To clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to control and 

eradicate plant pests 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Vnitcd States 
of America in Congress assembled, That section 102 of the Act of September 21, 
1944 (58 Stat. 737 7 U.S.C. 147a), as amended, is further amended to read as 
follows : 



9 

"Sec. 102. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture, either independently or in co- 
operation with States or political subdivisions thereof, farmers' associations, 
and similar organizations, and individuals, is authorized to carry out operations 
or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, or to prevent or retard the 
spread of plant pests, meaning any living stage of any insects, mites, nematodes, 
slugs, snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate animals, bacteria, fungi, other para- 
sitic plants or reproductive parts thereof, viruses, or any organisms similar to or 
allied with any of the foregoing, or any infectious substances, which can directly 
or indirectly injure or cause disease or damage in any plants or parts thereof, 
or any processed, manufactured, or other products of plants. 

"(b) The Secretary of Agriculture is further authorized to cooperate with 
the Governments of Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Sal- 
vador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, or the local authorities thereof, 
in carrying out necessary surveys and control operations in those countries in 
connection with the eradication, suppression, control, and prevention or retarda- 
tion of the spread of plant pests. In performing the operations or measures herein 
authorized, the cooperating foreign country, State, or local agency shall be 
responsible for the authority necessary to carry out the operation or measures 
on all lands and properties within the foreign country or State other than 
those owned or controlled by the Federal Government and for such other 
facilities and means as in the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture are 
necessary. As used in this section, the term 'State' include the District of 
Columbia and the territories and possessions of the United States. 

"(c) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate such rules 
and regulations and use such means as he may deem necessary to provide for 
the inspection of plants and plant products offered for export or transiting the 
United States and to certify to shippers and interested parties as to the free- 
dom of such products from plant pests according to the sanitary requirements 
of the foreign countries to which such products may be exported, or to the 
freedom from exposure to plant pests while in transit through the United 
States. 

"(d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as the 
Congress may annually determine to be necessary to enable the Secretary of 
Agriculture to carry out the provisions of this section. Unless otherwise specifically 
authorized, or provided for in appropriations, no part of such sums shall be 
used to pay the cost or value of property injured or destroyed.". 

Sec. 2. Section 1 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 374; 7 U.S.C. 145) 
is hereby repealed. 

Mr. Bor. One of the differences is that the Senate bill would apply 
the provisions relating to controls on plant pests to all Western Hemi- 
sphere countries, whereas the bill that was reported out by the sub- 
committee would cover the areas that are indicated on page 2 of the 
bill, namely the areas in the Caribbean and Central America. 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. de la Garza, would you have objection — in the inter- 
est of saving time — to an amendment that would include the Western 
Hemisphere ? 

Mr. de la Garza. I have no objection, but if I recall the objection, 
it was from the Department. They wanted to specify these specific 
names of the countries. 

Mr. Kelly. The Senate does not? 

Mr. de la Garza. That is correct. 

In the interest of time I would prefer to pass the Senate bill, that is, 
in lieu of ours; but I don't know what the Department's stand would 
now be, inasmuch as the Senate bill has passed. 

Mr. Kelly. I did not know about the other differences. 

This one difference is certainly acceptable. 

Mr. Bor. The second difference is that the Senate bill deleted a pro- 
vision in the current act which is unnecessary as a result of some of the 
provisions in this act. It makes only a technical change. This was 
brought about by what has happened to the other amendments. 



10 

The third difference deals with the very last provision in the House 
bill. It relates to vectors that transmit communicable diseases of 
animals. 

The bill that was reported by the subcommittee would expand the 
controls so that it would apply not merely to Canada but to the 
Bahamas, the Greater and Lesser Antilles, and certain international 
organizations. 

The Senate bill did not expand the area of coverage to the extent 
that was provided in the bill that was adopted by the subcommittee. 

Mi. Poach:. 1 thought that you told us that the Senate bill covered 
everything. 

Mr. Bor. There are two different issues addressed by the bill: one 
relates to insects, which in the Senate bill is enlarged to cover all of 
the Western Hemisphere, and in the House bill we had a lesser cover- 
age; the other area relates to vectors of animal diseases, that is, dis- 
eases communicated by animals. In that case the Senate bill did not 
enlarge the area of coverage, whereas the House bill did. 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, if Mr. de la Garza intends to withdraw 
his bill and substitute the Senate bill, then I would like to know. 

Is that your intention? 

Mr. de la Garza. The only problem is that the vector part which we 
have in the House bill is not in the Senate bill, is that right, counsel? 

Mr. Bor. That is correct. 

Mr. de la Garza. We are going to have to make a decision. I am 
sorry that the gentleman is inclined to delay the bill. 

Mr. Poage. We will pass it over and go to the next bill. 

[Whereupon the committee proceeded to other business.] 



CONTROL AND ERADICATE PLANT PESTS 



THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Committee ox Agriculture, 

Washing ton ,D.C. 

The committee met at 10 :25 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present: Representatives de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of North 
Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Mathis, Bergland, Bowen, Rose. Litton, 
Breckinridge, Richmond, Nolan, Weaver, Baldus, Krebs, Hightower, 
Bedell, McHugh, English, Fithian, D'Amours, Sebelius, Findley, 
Thone, Symms, Madigan, Jeffords, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn, and 
Moore. 

Staff present: Robert M. Bor and Hyde H. Murray, counsels; John 
E. Hogan, associate counsel; Steve Allen, staff assistant; Glenda Tem- 
ple and Mary Jarratt, staff assistants. 

The Chairman. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order. 

The committee meets this morning for further consideration of the 
calendar. 

The first item on the agenda is H.R. 6403, having to do with agri- 
culture pest control of the Mediterranean fruit fly. It is reported 
from the Department o.f Operations, Investigations and Oversight 
Subcommittee. 

Without objection, H.R. 6403 will be considered by the committee 
and open for amendment at any point. 

Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Chairman, this is the bill that we discussed 
yesterday. There is a Senate bill S. 1617. There are three differences 
between the two bills. 

I would like to do this as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, I 
think the best course under the circumstances would be, if the commit- 
tee would allow us to do so, to pass the House bill as reported by the 
subcommittee so that we might try to get it on the suspension calendar 
next Monday. Then we can ask the Senate for a conference and ask for 
adjustments there. 

This would be better than going through the amending process here, 
and then have to wait for the possibility that the Senate may want a 
conference anyway. 

If there are no questions or objections to it, I move that we report 
out this bill favorably with instructions to the staff which would be ap- 
propriate. 

The Chairman. Is there any discussion ? 

Mr. Mathis. Was this amendment adopted already ? 

(11) 



12 

Mr. de la Garza. That amendment is one that we would have to 
amend for the Senate bill. 

Mr. Mathis. We are not considering that, are we? 
Mr. de la Garza. No. Either it is in the House bill or the Senate bill. 
Rather than get involved with that, we will pass the House bill as 

is and then reconcile the differences in conference. 

Mr. Mathis. If it is in order, Mr. Chairman, I move the previous 
question. 

The Chairman. If the gentleman would hold off iust a moment. Are 
there any members who wish to further discuss this bill ? 

Does counsel see any technical problems? 

Mr. Murray. You mean procedurally or substantively? 

I confess I do not understand why you want to go with the House 
number when you have a Senate bill before us. because the Senate bill 
has been referred to the Committee on Agriculture. Once the House bill 
passes, then the only way we can get it back out of the Agriculture 
Committee is by unanimous consent to reconcile the language of the 
House-passed version with the Senate version. 

Otherwise what will happen is that the House number will end up 
in the Senate and the Senate number will be over here in the Agricul- 
ture Committee. The Senate then will have to amend the House bill 
and ask for a conference. They have passed that once. Or they will have 
to accept the House bill. 

The Chairman. The alternative would be to take up the Senate bill. 
Is that correct? 

Mr. Murray. And put the language of the House bill in it. 

Then, when it goes to the Senate, the Senate will have a choice of 
accepting the House amendment or asking for a conference; or, if you 
think the Senate will want a conference anyway, we can expedite it 
and ask for a conference in the House when the Senate bill as amended 
is passed. 

Mr. de la Garza. I appreciate the advice of counsel. It will do what 
we want to do, but we need to do it with the Senate bill, correct ? 

Mr. Murray. Correct. 

All you are doing is taking the Senate number as a vehicle and strik- 
ing out all after the enacting clause which is in the Senate version and 
putting in whatever your subcommittee has decided to do. 

That will then go to the Senate in that form, and they will have a 
choice of accepting it or not. 

The Chairman. The Senate bill is S. 1617? 

Mr. Murray. Yes. 

Mr. Poage. I move that we vote the Senate bill and reconcile the 
language with H.R. 6403. 

The Chairman. Is there any objection to the motion of the gentle- 
man from Texas to strike the enacting clause of the bill S. 1617 and to 
substitute thereafter the language of the bill H.R. 6403, as reported 
by the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Investigations and 
Oversight? 

Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee now, without 
objection, will have before it the bill S. 1617, which is open for amend- 
ment at any point. 

Are there any amendments ? If not, the Chair recognizes the gentle- 
man from Georgia. 



13 

Mr. Mathis. I move the question. 

The Chairman. The question has been moved, and without objec- 
tion the question is ordered. 

All those in favor of the motion from the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. de la Garza, to report S. 1617. as amended, signify by saying 
"aye." 

Those opposed? 

The ayes have it. The motion is adopted, and the bill will be 
reported. 

Without objection we will request its consideration on the suspen- 
sion calendar. 

Does any member wish to file additional or dissenting views on this 
bill? 

If not, the staff will see what must be done and proceed as promptly 
as possible. 

[The committee proceeded to consider other business.] 



PEANUT ALLOTMENT TRANSFER 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee ox Oilseeds and Rice 

of the Committee ox Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met at 2 :10 p.m., pursuant to call, in room 1302, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ed Jones of Tennessee (act- 
ing chairman) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Jenrette. Bowen, Thornton, and Moore. 

Staff present: John E. Hogan, associate counsel; Leighton Lang 
and Roxie Burris, staff consultants, Subcommittee on Oilseeds and 
Rice; James Culver, staff consultant. Subcommittee on Dairy and 
Poultry; and Anita Brown, staff assistant. 

Mr. Joxes of Tennessee. The Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice 
will come to order. 

We are meeting here today for the purpose of hearing Mr. William 
L. Lanier, Director of the Tobacco and Peanut Division of the Agricul- 
tural Stabilization and Conservation Service here in Washington. D.C. 

Along with Mr. Lanier is Mr. Verlon Welch, Assistant to the 
Administrator of ASCS. 

We will have a public hearing in regard to the consideration of the 
bill S. 1545. 

[The billS. 1545 follows:] 

[S. 1545, 94th Cong., 1st sess.] 
AX ACT To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 with respect to peanuts 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That section 358 of the Agricultural Adjust- 
ment Act of 1938 be amended by adding a new subsection (j) to read as follows : 

"(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if the Secretary deter- 
mines for 1975 or a subsequent year that because of a natural disaster a portion 
of the farm peanut acreage allotments in a county cannot be timely planted or 
replanted in such year, he may authorize for such year the transfer of all or a 
part of the peanut acreage allotments for any farm in the county so affected to 
another farm in the county or in an adjoining county in the same or an adjoining 
State on which one or more of the producers on the farm from which the transfer 
is to be made will be engaged in the production of peanuts and will share in the 
proceeds thereof, in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may pre- 
scribe. Any farm allotment transferred under this subsection shall be deemed to 
be released acreage for the purpose of acreage history credits under subsection 
(g) of this section and section 377 of this Act: Provided, That notwithstanding 
the provisions of subsection (g) of this section, the transfer of any farm allot- 
ment under this subsection shall operate to make the farm from which the allot- 
ment was transferred eligible for an allotment as having peanuts planted thereon 
during the three-year base period.". 

Passed the Senate November 12, 1975. 

Attest : Francis R. Valeo, 

Secretary. 
(15) 



16 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. Mr. Lanier, we don't have B quorum present, 
but for the sake of time we will go ahead and let you be heard. 

Mr. Jenrette, do you have anything to say \ 

Mr. Jexrette. Nothing except that we are glad to see Mr. Lanier 
up and around again. 

Mr. Laxier. I am happy to be back. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. LANIER, DIRECTOR, TOBACCO AND 
PEANUT DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CON- 
SERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. Lanier. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 
thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you to dis- 
cuss the transfer of peanut allotments because of disasters. 

My name is William L. Lanier. I am director of the Tobacco and 
Peanut Division, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Serv- 
ice, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

The bill before you for consideration, S. 1545, would amend the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 to authorize the transfer of pea- 
nut allotments to farms in the same county or an adjoining county in 
the same or adjoining State, provided the Secretary determines that 
because of natural disaster, some peanut allotments could not be timely 
planted. 

The provision to permit allotment transfers to another county, even 
though the county into which the allotment is being transferred is in 
another State, is intended to make sure that all farmers have equal 
opportunity for such transfers regardless of the geographical location 
of the county within which the farm is located. 

It is estimated that the enactment of this bill would result in nominal 
administrative costs at the county level. 

The Department has no objection to the proposed legislation. 

Mr. Joxes of Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Lanier. 

I see that we now have Mr. Thornton from the State of Arkansas 
with us. We also have Mr. Moore from the State of Louisiana with us. 

Gentlemen, what we did was to go ahead with the testimony of 
Mr. Lanier because of the time element. 

Are there questions for Mr. Lanier? 

Mr. Jenrette ? 

Mr. Jexrette. Mr. Lanier, are there any other programs adminis- 
tered by ASCS that allow the transfer of commodities across the State 
line? 

Mr. Lanier. Xo; not across the State line; but we do have one that 
will permit it across the county line. In the last couple of years we had 
some counties that suffered from too much water. This was in South 
Carolina and Georgia. 

A law was passed to permit the transfer across county lines. 

To my knowledge this is the first one, that is the one we are con- 
sidering today, that is going across State lines. 

I might add this, Mr. Jenrette. The county in which the allotment 
originated will be credited with planting. It will be given history 
credit for the planting. 

Mr. Jexrette. If this disaster occurred in 1976 and if I transferred 
it, for instance, into North Carolina under this provision of this legis- 



17 

lation, then next year it would still be my allotment and would revert 
to me in South Carolina ? 

Mr. Lanier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenrette. Do you contemplate that the Secretary would say 
that it could be across State lines or county lines ? 

As I understand it, it is in the same county or adjoining county even 
though it may cross State lines. Do you propose that the Secretary 
will declare a natural disaster and leave it to the farmers? How do 
you propose that that be done ? 

Mr. Lanier. If a county is declared to be a disaster county, then 
it would be up to the allotment holder to find land in an adjacent 
county within his State or within a county in another State. So it 
would be up to you as an allotment holder to find a suitable site for 
the production of peanuts for that given year. 

Mr. Jexrette. The Secretary's determination is based solely on there 
being a natural disaster, and then it is up to the market to trade in 
such way as they would see fit. 

Mr. Lanier. That is correct. 

Mr. Jexrette. I don't think that I have any more questions, Mr. 
Jones. 

Mr. Joxes of Tennessee. Mr. Moore ? 

Mr. Moore. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Joxes of Tennessee. Mr. Thornton ? 

Excuse me, Mr. Lanier, go ahead. 

Mr. Lanier. Mr. Jenrette asked me a question which has prompted 
me to say that there may be a possibility that rice could be transferred 
across State lines. I know that years ago this was the case. We used to 
joke about it in Georgia as being a "hip-pocket allotment." 

But whether or not this is true with rice today, I don't know. 

Therefore, there may well be a precedent for this. 

Mr. Jexrette. But the tobacco disaster which you talked about was 
solely within the State, is that true ? 

Mr. Laxier. Yes. 

Mr. Thornton. It is my understanding that the purpose for that 
is to allow a county, which happens to border on another State, to 
have the same opportunity for making a change in the event of dis- 
aster as the county which is surrounded entirely within a State, is 
that correct. 

Mr. Lanier. That is correct. 

Mr. Thornton. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. Mr. Lanier, let me give you a hypothetical 
example of a problem that exists in my district and also in the State 
of Arkansas. 

Of course, the States of Arkansas and Tennessee are divided by the 
Mississippi River. There have been times when it would be feasible, 
if we could have done so, to transfer peanut allotments from the State 
of Arkansas into the State of Tennessee on higher ground. 

We would be covered in this provision, am I not correct? 

Mr. Lanier. Yes. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. Mr. Thornton, I don't know whether you 
were aware of Bill Alexander's difficulties in his district. 

Mr. Thornton. Yes, I am aware of that. I knew that our colleague 
had introduced similar legislation. 



18 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. That is exactly right. 

Mr. Jenrette. What is the difference in this and Mr. Alexander's 
bill ? Are you familiar with that ? 

Mr. Thornton. I would like to ask for staff comment. 

I think the two bills are identical, or nearly so. 

I am advised by staff that they are identical. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. Are there any other questions from the 
members of the subcommittee ! 

There is not a quorum present. 

In order to mark this bill up there must be a change in the bill, 
am I not correct, Mr. Hogan? We would have to change a date, I 
think. 

Mr. Hogan. Yes, I am sure that you might want to get a response 
from the departmental officials. 

In line seven of the act there is a provision for 1975. I assume that 
you may want to change that, possibly not. 

Mr. Lanier. I looked at that but it said "1975 or subsequent year." 
So you could or could not change it according to what you want to do. 

Mr. Hogan. That is the case, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is up to 
your discretion, Mr. Chairman whether or not you change it. You 
can leave it as it is. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. In your opinion it is alright? 

Mr. Hogan. Yes, I do believe so. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. Is there anv objection to the marking up 
of this bill? 

Mr. Moore? 

Mr. Moore. I have no objection. 

I just want to say that I am coming to the rescue of the peanut 
farmers even after they severely messed up the rice-farming industry. 

I don't bear any grudges. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. But you must remember that the dairy 
people took real good care of you. 

Mr. Moore. Yes. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. We should move, should we not, to mark 
this up? 

Mr. Moore. I so move, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jenrette. I second the motion. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Op- 
posed, no. 

The ayes have it and it is so adopted. 

The bill then is recommended to the full committee for its favor- 
able action. 

We thank yon. Mr. Lanier and Mr. Welch, for your presence today. 
We invite yon both to come back at any time. 

I am sorry that Chairman Mathis is not here. I know that lie would 
have liked to have seen you. but we did the best we could in his 
absence. 

The subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] 



PEANUT ALLOTMENT TRANSFER 



THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chair- 
man) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Melcher, Mathis, Bergland, 
Bowen, Rose, Litton, Richmond, Nolan, Weaver, Baldus, Krebs, 
Harkin, Hightower, Bedell, McHugh, English, Fithian, Thornton, 
Wampler, Sebelius, Thone, Symms, Johnson, Peyser, Jeffords, Kelly, 
Grassley, Hagedorn, and Moore. 

Staff present: Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert M. Bor and 
Hyde H. Murray, counsels; William A. Imhof and John E. Hogan, 
associate counsels ; John Baize and Alan Gray, staff consultants, Sub- 
committee on Livestock and Grains; Jerry Jorgensen, staff consult- 
ant, Subcommittee on Department Operations, Investigations and 
Oversight; L. T. Easley, press assistant; Glenda Temple and Susan 
Bell, staff assistants. 

The Chairman. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order. 

The committee meets this morning for consideration of two bills, 
the first of which comes from the Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice. 
This is S. 1545. 

The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Mathis, 
to report the subcommittee action on the bill. 

Mr. Mathis. Thank you. 

This does nothing but to provide that in the case of natural disaster 
the Secretary might have the authority to allow peanuts to be trans- 
ferred across county lines and State iines. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill was prompted by a problem that our friend 
Mr. Alexander has in Arkansas where the channel of the Mississippi 
River has changed and has left the farm in such a position that the 
particular farmer who holds the peanut allotment in Arkansas cannot 
grow those peanuts in Arkansas but must grow them in Tennessee. 

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jones, actually handled the 
subcommittee. He may very well have some comments. 

It is a harmless bill. It does nothing in terms of cost to the Treasury. 
Quite frankly, it helps ease the problem for our friend Bill Alexander 
in Arkansas. 

(19) 



20 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that 
where these peanut allotments are involved the holder of the allotment 
holds land in Tennessee as well as in Arkansas. It has been a problem 
that we have been tolerating for a good many years. Usually at the 
time of the year when peanuts are to be planted there is a flood on his 
side of the river and on my side of the river it is high land. 

The Chairman. Mr. Jones, this bill would provide authority for the 
Secretary to permit the transfer of these allotments in the event of a 
natural disaster. Is that correct? 

Mr. Joxes of Tennessee. Yes. 

Mr. Matiiis. That is correct. 

I understand that this bill is identical language to legislation we 
passed in 1972 that would allow the same thing to happen. So what we 
are really doing is continuing the language which had an expiration 
date on it. Except you will note in the bill that it gives the Secretary 
this authority for 1975 or a subsequent year so that we will not have to 
bring this before the committee in 2 or 3 years again. 

This situation obviously will not correct itself unless the river 
changes channels. 

Mr. Chairman, I think we should move to strike the numerals 
"1975" and insert "1976." The bill passed the Senate in 1975. This 
would make the bill applicable to 1976. 

I would so move. 

The Chairman. I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Peyser. 

Mr. Peyser. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my good friend from 
Georgia that obviously I have no objection to the bill. But I want it 
understood that I think that the very concept of the allocation and 
the allotment program is still something very much in need of revi- 
sion. I know we are waiting for legislation from the gentleman's 
committee. 

While I do not oppose this kind of change, I do think it is simply a 
small item in the total problem of the program. Hopefully, we will be 
able to address that problem before the year is out. 

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Grassley? 

Mr. Grassley. Because of some embarrassment we had on another 
bill last vear. is there anv cost to the Federal Treasurv involved in this 
bill? 

Mr. Matiiis. There is no cost to the Treasury here. 

Mr. Grassley. Thank you. 

Mr. Matiiis. Let me respond to my friend from New York. He has 
long been concerned about the welfare of my peanut farmers. 

We would like to have legislation. I suspect it will be introduced 
and, barring some hitches with our good friends in the Department 
of Agriculture, there is a great possibility that we will give the gentle- 
man an opportunity to vote to improve this program in the very near 
future. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the bill S. 1545 will be con- 
sidered as read and open to amendment at any point. 

The gentleman from Georgia moves that in line 7 the date "1975" 
be striken and that in lieu thereof "1976" be inserted. 

Is there anv discussion? 



21 

[No response.] 

The Chairman. All in favor will signify by saying aye. 

Are there other amendments to the bill ? 

Is there further discussion? 

I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Mathis. 

Mr. Mathis. I move that the committee report the bill with the 
recommendation "that it do pass." 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Georgia moves that the bill 
reported to the House with the recommendation that it pass. 

All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye, those 
opposed, nay. 

[No response.] 

The Chairman. The motion is approved, and the bill will be re- 
ported favorably to the House. 

The Chair will consult with the chairman of the subcommittee con- 
cerning the possibility of presenting the bill on the suspension calen- 
dar, if there is no objection. 

Members will have 3 legislative days to submit additional views 
on the bill just reported. 

With respect to the previous action by the subcommittee on S. 1545, 
let the record show that at the time the bill was reported a quorum 
was present. 

[The committee proceeded to other business.] 



TITLE V EXTENSION, RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 

1972 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee on Family Farms 

and Rural Development of the 

Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, B.C. 

The subcommittee met at 2 :30 p.m., pursuant to call, in room 1302, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Charles Rose (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present : Representatives Breckinridge, Bedell, Melcher, Litton, 
Nolan, Baldus, Sebelius, and Grassley. 

Also present : John E. Hogan, associate counsel ; L. T. Easley, press 
assistant; Margo Shildkret, Perry Shaw, and Wanda Worsham, staff 
assistants; Carol Forbes, legal counsel to Mr. Rose. 

Mr. Rose. The subcommittee will come to order. 

We will begin, gentlemen, our markup of several matters which we 
have before the subcommittee. 

You will recall that on Monday of last week, and also Tuesday of 
last week, we heard testimony concerning several bills which are now 
before us. 

The first one I would like to call up for your consideration and your 
wishes is H.R. 6346. It is a bill which I introduced, at the request of 
Chairman Foley, to make permanent the authorization of appropri- 
ations for carrying out title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972. 

[The bill JLR. 6346 and the report from the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture follow:] 

[H.R. 6346, 94th Cong., 1st sess.] 

A BILL To make permanent the authorization of appropriations for carrying out title V 
of the Rural Development Act of 1972 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection (a) of section 503 
of the Rurnl Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 2663(a) ) is amended by striking 
the word "and", and changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and 
adding the following: "not to exceed $5,000,000 for the period July 1. 1976, 
through September 30, 1976, and not to exceed $20,000,000 for each fiscal year 
thereafter.". 

Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, D.C., June 7, 1975. 
Hon. Thomas S. Foley, 
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, 
House of Representatives, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1975 for a 
report on H.R. 63^6, a bill "To make permanent the authorization of appropria- 
tions for carrying out Title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972." 

(23) 



24 

The Department recommends that the bill not be enacted. 

The bill would amend Section 503(a) of the Rural Development Act of 11)72 
(7 U.S.C. 2663(a)) to authorize appropriations of not to exceed $5,000,000 for 
the period July 1, 1&76 through September 30, 1076, and not to exceed $20,000,000 
for each fiscal year thereafter to carry out the purposes of Title V of the Rural 
Development Act of 1072. Section 503(a) currently provides funding authoriza- 
tion only through June 30, 1976. 

Title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972 authorizes the Secretary of 
Agriculture to conduct, in cooperation and coordination with colleges and uni- 
versities, rural development and small farm research and extension programs. 
The Department believes that funds to carry out work provided for under Title 
V beyond fiscal year 1976 could be provided under other existing authorizations 
such as the Smith-Lever Act and the Hatch Act. Therefore, the Department does 
not recommend enactment of H.R. 6346. 

The estimated cost of enacting this legislation will not result in additional 
cost in fiscal year 1975. However, if the legislation is fully funded it will cost 
$5,000,000 during the period July 1, 1976 through September 30, 1976 and 
$20,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to 
the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program. 

Sincerely, 

J. Phil Campbell, 

Under Secretary. 

Mr. Rose. As you will recall the testimony from the Department of 
Agriculture, the Department's position on this bill is that the mandate 
of title V for research and development in rural areas in their opinion 
can best be carried out under the Smith, Lever, and Hatch Act pro- 
grams and, therefore, they would recommend against the passage of 
H.R. 6346. 

You will also recall that, on Tuesday of last week, we had seven or 
eight witnesses from across the country who testified as to the work 
that they had been able to do under title V ? s research and develop- 
ment programs and they recommended it in the hope that we would 
continue this authorization. 

Are there any questions or discussions on H.R. 6346? 

Mr. Baldus. Mr. Chairman, the $5 million, I presume, has some 
reasoning behind it. I wonder what that is. 

Would you be interested in giving us the logic for that figure ? 

Mr. Rose. The act, as it was originally drafted, authorized $5 mil- 
lion in 1974, $15 million in 1975, and $20 million in 1976. 

In other words, initially the authorization for the first year was 
$5 million, the authorization for the second year was $15 million, and 
the authorization for the third year, which is fiscal year 1976, is $20 
million. 

What we are asking here is not to exceed $5 million for the period 
of July 1, 1976, through September 30, 1976, which is the intermediate 
budget period; and not to exceed $20 million for each fiscal year 
thereafter. 

So, what we are doing is keeping the authorization level at the 
last level of the bill, which was for 1976. 

Mr. Baldus. So, it is a substantial increase ? 

Mr. Rose. Right. 

Mr. Baldus. I understand now. 

Mr. Rose. The authorization is going from $5 to $15 to $20 million 
in the old bill. What we are seeking to do is to make that authoriza- 
tion permanent at the $20-million level. 



25 

Of course, what the Appropriations Committee will choose to do is 
something else. 
Are there other questions ? 

Mr. Baldus. Would the Chair entertain a motion ? 
Mr. Rose. Yes. 

Mr. Baldus. I move that it be recommended for passage. 
Mr. Rose. The motion has been made that H.R. 6346 be passed. 
All in favor raise their right hand. 
All opposed ? 
The vote is unanimous that we pass H.R. 6346. 



TITLE V EXTENSION, RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 

1972 



TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Committee ox Agriculture, 

Washington, D.O. 

The committee met at 2:15 p.m., pursuant to call, in room 1301, 
Long worth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Bergland, Rose, Litton, Rich- 
mond, Nolan, Baldus, Krebs, Hightower, Bedell, McHugh, English, 
Fithian, D'Amours, Wampler, Sebelius, Findley, Thone, Symms, 
Peyser, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn, and Moore. 

Staff present : Fowler C. West, staff director ; Robert M. Bor and 
Hyde H. Murray, counsels; John E. Hogan, associate counsel; John 
R. Kramer, special counsel; Steve Allen and Steve Pringle, staff as- 
sistants; John Baize, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Livestock and 
Grains; L. T. Easley, press assistant; Glenda Temple and Mary 
Jarratt, staff assistants. 

The Chairman. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order. 

The clerk informs me that a quorum is present. 

The committee meets today to continue consideration of pending 
business and to report bills from the Subcommittee on Family Farms 
and Rural Development. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Rose. 

Mr. Rose. The item that we have is H.R. 6346. It is a bill to make 
permanent the authorization of appropriations for carrying out title V 
of the Rural Development Act of 1972. 

Title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972 provides for research 
and education in the area of rural development. The funds, which have 
been authorized and appropriated under title V of the Rural Develop- 
ment Act of 1972, have been used to establish regional rural develop- 
ment centers in this Nation. 

Also, colleges and universities have been able to establish programs 
under title V of the act in order to carry out research and education 
projects in the area of rural development. 

The testimony we received in the subcommittee indicated that this 
is a very popular program among the colleges and universities which 
have made use of it. H.R. 6346 seeks to make permanent the authoriza- 
tion of appropriations for carrying out title V because the present 
authorization extends only through the current fiscal year. 

I will be happy to answer any questions that anyone might have on 
this. We would urge the adoption of it by the full committee. 

(27) 



28 

Mr. de la Garza. As the gentleman knows, I have l>een offering a 
little amendment to bills which authorize funds for more than 1 year. 

The purpose of this is to carry a continuous oversight of the func- 
tions of the appropriated funds from the Congress to the different 
departments and agencies within the Department of Agriculture. 

The gentleman, by this legislation, seeks to destroy the thrust of 
that amendment. I wonder how he would feel if we were to offer an 
amendment to strike out the "in perpetuity" authorization and only 
make it an annual authorization; and then we could come back and 
take another look at it. 

Mr. Rose. I would be happy to agree to that amendment. 

Mr. Kelly. As I understand it, the purpose of it is to increase the 
amount of money that is authorized, is that correct ? 

Mr. Rose. The purpose of what we are doing is to extend the au- 
thorization of appropriations to title V of the Rural Development Act 
of 1972. The authorization expires at the end of this fiscal year for 
title V research and development programs. H.R. 6346 attempts to 
accomplish to make those authorizations permanent. 

Mr. de la Garza wishes to make it for a period of 1 year, and I have 
no objection to that. 

Mr. Kelly. Does it increase the amount? 

Mr. Rose. Xo. With his amendment, it does not increase the amount 
of authorization. 

Mr. Poage. In other words, this is just to carry it on for another 
year ? 

Mr. Rose. Exactly. 

Mr. Bor. Section 503 of the Rural Development Act now provides 
an authorization which terminates with an authorization for appro- 
priations of not to exceed $20 million for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1976. 

The way that this would be changed would be that this would add 
$5 million for the July 1 period through September 1976 and $20 
million for the next subsequent fiscal year? 

The Chairman. Although the precise formula has not been decided, 
counsel raises an excellent point. The fiscal year will be changed next 
year to October 1. 

Mr. de la Garza, do you want to speak ? 

Mr. de la Garza. My purpose is to strike out the "not to exceed $20 
million for each fiscal year thereafter.'' 

Mr. Bor. The authorization, which is now contained in the act, is 
for $20 million for the fiscal year that ends June 30, 1976 so that if 
wo are going to extend it, then you may wish to extend it through 
September 30, 1977. 

The Chairman. That would provide for the 3-month changeover 
periods and would allow $20 million for the fiscal year ending on 
September 30, 1977. 

Mr. Bor. Yes. 

Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is prepared to 
strike out the words "not to exceed $20 million for each fiscal year 
thereafter." But, in view of what counsel has said, I wonder if I might 
impose on the committee to either dispose favorably or unfavorably 
with the intent of my amendment and have counsel draft it with the 
appropriate figure as to the year. 



29 

I ask unanimous consent that that be done. 

The Chairman. I think we ought to decide how long we intend that 
period to be. Would it be $5 million for the 3-month period between 
July 1, 1976, and October 1, 1976; and then $20 million for the fiscal 
year 1977 which would begin October 1, 1976, and end on Septem- 
ber 30, 1977? 

Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Chairman, I have no intent to involve myself 
with the amounts recommended by the committee. 

All I am interested in is that it not be authorized beyond 1 year. 
Therefore, it would probably read $5 million for the period July 1, 
1976, to September 30, 1976, and not to exceed $20 million for pe- 
riod ending September 30, 1977. 

Mr. Bor. You could say $20 million for the fiscal year ending Sep- 
tember 30, 1977. 

The Chairman. The precise language can be taken care of later. 
The committee understands the intention of the gentleman's amend- 
ment and what it would involve. 

Is there any objection to the precise language being prepared by 
counsel ? 

Mr. Sebelius. I want to speak in opposition. 

The purpose is good, but if w r e are going to do our oversight duties 
every year, then we have a new ballgame. It seems as though many of 
our new Members want to speak on every subject, whether they are on 
the committee or not. 

If it is going to be like this, we will be in session 24 months out of 
the year. I just think that we are going to be stuffing ourselves with 
things which are good, but because of the need for oversight, we might 
not be able to do it. There is enough work as it is. 

The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield ? 

Mr. Sebelius. Yes. 

The Chairman. I think you make a point that we have too many 
authorizations expiring at times which place pressure on the com- 
mittee, and, accordingly, on the House. 

In this case, however, the problem, as I gather from talking to the 
gentleman from North Carolina, is that the Department has not been 
too anxious to proceed with this program any way. 

The original intention, I think, of the subcommittee's action was 
to prod the Department into taking steps with regard to this particu- 
lar title of the Rural Development Act. 

In any event, we would be working 2 years ahead of when they 
would be permitted to move, and this would put us into October 1977. 

Though I agree with my respected friend from Texas, that we 
should have oversight responsibility; occasionally we may need to 
have longer than 1-year authorizations. Perhaps, we could also stagger 
those 1-year authorizations so that all of the basic programs which we 
oversee, do not come up for extension during one particular legislative 
session. 

Mr. Sebelius. I have one other point. 

Some of these bills, which go to the floor, can meet an unfavorable 
climate and may wind up with no substance at all. We might not, then, 
be able to extend them at all. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

The Chairman. Mr. Poage. 



77-139 O - 77 



30 

Mr. Poage. I think what we are deciding now is the question of 
whether we are going to adopt the philosophy which Mr. de la Garza 
has sought. I think it is a good philosophy. 

I am sure that this committee and other committees of the Congress 
have lost influence with departments because we have no way of hold- 
ing back on anything that they want. 

Once we pass the legislation, we have, in the past, been following 
the policy of letting them go. And, it is a virtue. 

But, we have gone too far with this. Departments feel that they 
don't have any more responsibility toward their committees than they 
do for anybody else. In particular, the Department of Agriculture 
doesn't feel that they have to watch out for the Committee of 
Agriculture. 

We can't deny anything because we have already authorized it in 
perpetuity. We cannot stop the appropriations. 

The idea that Mr. Sebelius has brought up, that we can't do it every 
year, doesn't appeal to me. Mr. Whitten's committee does do it every 
year. He has a great deal of influence down there at the Department. 
When they get word that Mr. Whitten has interest in a certain pro- 
cedure, then they seek to do something about it. 

I am just worried that the Agriculture Committee will not be 
reckoned with. As far as they are concerned, they are not interested. 

I think if we are ever going to have the cooperation, which I think 
we ought to have, then we are going to have to do what Mr. de la Garza 
is seeking to try to get us to do. 

Of course, it is going to require a little more activity on the part of 
us. That activity won't hurt us any. I hope that we will keep these 
things in the control of the committee rather than just turning them 
over and saying: "Well, we have passed it over to you; you are the 
trustee, so go ahead." 

That doesn't appeal to me. 

The Chairman. If the gentleman will yield, I agree wholeheartedly 
on the principle. The only thing that concerns me is that the new 
budget act requires us to have our authorization process completed 
early in the spring of each year so the Appropriations Committee can 
act with respect to those authorizations. 

I am only cautioning that we will have to be careful not to crowd so 
much of our legislative responsibility into the first couple of months 
of the year that it becomes burdensome. 

I support Mr. de la Garza's amendment, just as I strongly support 
the argument advanced by Mr. Poage. 

We have a responsibility. We are the authorizing committee who 
looks into the validity of these programs through the continual ex- 
amination of how they are actually being carried out. I think that 
perhaps all of us in the Congress have been negligent in this area of 
responsibilitv. Furthermore. I hope that we will be more conscientious 
and diligent in this aspect of our work. 

Is there any further discussion ? 

If not. without obiection the previous question is ordered. 

All in favor of the amendment by the Member from Texas, say 
"aye." and all opposed, "no." 

The "ayes" appear to have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

Mr. Krebs. I have a question to address to Mr. Rose. 



31 

Mr. Rose, did I understand correctly that this act, which we are 
presently discussing, would in effect deal with agricultural research 
and training? 

Mr. Rose. Title V of the Rural Development Act is for small farm 
research and education. What it does is to mandate the Secretary to 
appropriate, through the land-grant colleges and universities 
throughout the Nation, money for research and for setting educa- 
tional program addressed at the specific problems faced by rural 
small towns and communities. 

In our subcommittee hearings the president of Oregon State Uni- 
versity came and testified that with knowledge, which was developed 
as a result of these programs, he has seen many small towns and com- 
munities helped in his State to regenerate themselves when, without 
help, he felt that they would have been doomed to a kind of self- 
destruction. 

These have provided great self-help programs for rural communi- 
ties. The funds have been limited, and the appropriations have been 
only $3 million, that is, which has actually been applied to these. 

Mr. Krebs. In my district we have a college known as Fresno State 
University. It is extremely agriculturally oriented and we feel it is as 
qualified as any other agricultural institution to engage in this type 
of research. 

I know that there are other districts concerned about this matter in 
connection with other bills which are now pending. 

I was wondering whether you would accept an amendment which 
would insert after "land-grant universities'' the words "and other 
qualified institutions of higher education." 

Mr. Rose. I thought that the next bill, which we were to take up 
today covered that problem, but I am told that it does not. 

In answer to the gentleman's question, I would certainly have no 
objection to the amendment. 

Mr. Krebs. Do you still have it in mind or would you like me to 
repeat the language ? 

Mr. Rose. Would you repeat the language, please ? 

Mr. Krebs. After the phrase "land-grant universities'' it would 
read "and other qualified institutions of higher education." 

In other words, it would also cover non-land-grant universities and 
colleges. They would have to be qualified, obviously, in the field. 

Mr. Rose. I have no objection to that. 

Exactly where we would add that and what language it would be, I 
am not so sure at this point. 

Mr. Symms. How many institutions are we talking about? 

Mr. Krebs. I am not sure. Obviously, it would involve a number 
of them. 

There are a couple of bills pending which include that phrase on 
similar proposals involving research. 

Mr. Poage. On that question, although some of us felt at the time 
that what you are suggesting is good, we didn't do it. I was one of 
them. I felt that we should not try to say that nobody could do this 
work except the land-grant colleges and universities, but we are 
faced with a number of technical colleges throughout the country- 
most of them are junior colleges— some of which are 4-year technical 



32 

schools. In some cases, some of them are probably perfectly well quali- 
fied to do this. 

Frankly, we could not come up with a practical way of drafting the 
expansion of this without making it too wide. So, we did not attempt 
to expand on it for that reason. 

The committee, at that time, had no basic objection, as I recall it. 
to what you are suggesting; but it did not have very good draftsman- 
ship. 

Mr. Bor. The language in title V is very broad as to the types of 
educational institutions with which these cooperative agreements may 
be carried out. It says in section 502 : 

The Secretary of Agriculture is directed and authorized to conduct in co- 
operation and coordination with colleges and universities the following programs 
to carry out the purposes of this title. 

So, it is not limited to land-grant universities. It uses the broad 
term "colleges and universities." 

The Chairman. Mr. Krebs, does that take care of your concern? 

Mr. Rose. I apologize to Mr. Krebs for misleading him. I was of 
the opinion that the language read differently, but even reading as 
Counsel has read, section 504 (c) of this bill says : 

All private and publicly supported colleges and universities in a state includ- 
ing the land-grant colleges of 1890 shall be eligible to conduct and participate 
in conducting programs authorized under this title. 

Mr. Krebs. That takes care of my objection. 

Mr. Peyser. It seems to me that we need clarification. 

On page 2, section 2 : 

The Secretary shall provide that the sum of the payments to any State under 
this title shall not be less than $50,000 per year. 

I think under the present formulas, some States onlv get between 
$10,000 and $14,000 a year, the way it is right now. 

I guess the point is that if you have this kind of a floor and you 
are not guaranteed a larger appropriation, then this is going to hurt 
a number of States which have been getting more money. They will 
now have to be reduced in order to provide to every State this amount 
of money. 

Mr. Sebeltus. There are 50 States and £50.000 makes it $2,500,000. 
That is about as much as they spent, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Rose. Yes. 

The Chairman. The problem is that the authorization is substan- 
tially greater than the actual appropriation which was made. 

Mr. Peyser. What I am getting at, however, is that I recognize that 
we should not legislate based on what is appropriated, but if you pass 
this section of the bill and then if appropriations should appropriate 
the same level for give and take, then you would be creating a harmful 
situation for the States. That could be a problem. 

The Chatrmax. We would hope that the Appropriations Committee 
would take that into consideration. 

Mr. Rose. Mr. Chairman, my friend from New York may be talking 
about the formula for H.R. 6678 which is the next bill that we will be 
taking up. 

Mr. Peyser. Yes, I am ; I beg your pardon. I recognize that I am on 
that bill. 



33 

Mr. Rose. I am aware of his arguments. However, that is not the bill 
that we are discussing at the moment. 

The Chairman. I would like to make note of the fact that the com- 
mittee is honored today by the presence of a very special guest. As you 
may know, several members of the Congress have been in Norway 
recently to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the departure of 
Norwegian immigrants for the United States. 

With us today is the distinguished member of the Norwegian Parlia- 
ment and chairman of its committee on education and church affairs. 
I know that the committee will want to join with me in greeting Mrs. 
Gaeljhun and her husband who are in this country on official business. 

Mr. Berglaxd. Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to 
speak out of order. 

My maternal grandparents were on that departure. 

The Chairman. That is another thing for which we can thank 
Norway. 

Senator Humphrey, Senator Mondale, and Senator Magnuson from 
my State as well as a number of others of Norwegian descent were 
along on that trip. 

It is always interesting to reflect on the courage of people who made 
the decision to emigrate across a difficult ocean to a new country with- 
out knowing quite what might await them. 

These immigrants have played a major part in all aspects of our 
national life. I think there are about half again as many Norwegians 
in the United States as there are in Norway. 

Mr. Kelly. I would like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee 
something. 

This law has been in effect since August of 1972, as I understand it. 
What has been going on? Why should we perpetuate what has been 
happening? What did the subcommitte find that has been good? It 
sounds great. 

Mr. Rose. I thank the gentleman for his question. It not only sounds 
great, but the results of this program have been great. 

The Department of Agriculture, although the Department itself 
has not been in favor of continuing the title V program as such, but 
does admit that the results of the pilot project, which was permitted 
by title V, were very rewarding and very useful. 

The authorization for the first year was $10 million. For the second 
fiscal year it was $15 million. For the third fiscal year — and we pro- 
pose in this bill — the authorization is $20 million. 

Even in face of that, the Agriculture Department has requested 
very small amounts to implement the program, and, in fact, only $3 
million for the first 2 years of this Rural Development Act were 
actually appropriated and expended for the title V program. 

The Department has made no requests for funds in the upcoming 
fiscal year for the title V program. 

You asked what has been accomplished by these programs. I would 
direct you to the hearings which were conducted several weeks ago on 
this subject. 

The directors of the regional centers for rural development, which 
are mechanisms which have been set up by the States for carrying out 
these programs, came before us and testified that their work had been 



34 

very rewarding. As I told earlier, the president of Oregon State Uni- 
versity testified that the self-help programs that his regional center 

had been able to develop had been a source of stimulation for dying 
small cities and towns in his part of the country. 

Mr. Kelly. Did he specify what (owns and in what ways this pro- 
gram had been specifically helpful? Did you have testimony from 
the beneficiaries other than the administrators? 

Mr. Rose. We took the word of the president of Oregon State Uni- 
versity as to that particular instance. He did not give us specific towns. 
I am sure that we could find that out from him. 

I would say to the gentleman from Florida that the problems of 
rural development and of rural America multiply today much faster 
than we are applying solutions for them. If more and more people 
move into rural America, we need the kinds of programs that are 
envisioned by title V of the Rural Development Act in order to plan 
and to help the people in rural America solve the real problems which 
they are faced with. 

That is the purpose of helping rural America to research and to 
develop into the problem solving of the problems which they are faced 
with. 

This means everything from better hospitals, better roads, water 
and sewage assistance, how to get ready to take an influx of new indus- 
try, how T to set up municipal services generally, and so on. 

Mr. Peyser. The Agriculture Department in testifying on this bill 
indicated that many of the programs which the chairman has just 
mentioned have been carried out in other sections and in other areas 
by other legislations. 

This is one of the reasons why they have used such little money. 
They have been implementing programs under other pieces of legis- 
lation rather than this piece of legislation. 

I made a pointed question of that during the hearings to make it 
very plain that they were carrying out these programs but that, legis- 
latively, they were carrying them out under other programs. So, I 
would mention that. 

Mr. Kelly. Thank you. 

There is adequate money available from other sources. And, with 
the deficit the country is faced with, why are we authorizing addi- 
tional money which apparently is not needed ? 

The Department of Agriculture indicates that it does not favor the 
continuation of this act. Is that not so ? 

Mr. Rose. That is the response we received from the Department of 
Agriculture, but it has not been my intention to lay down and roll 
over feet first and play dead to that kind of logic. 

I am just not convinced, for example, that the Department of Hous- 
ing and Urban Development is well equipped to address itself to the 
housing needs of rural America. HUD has absolutely no knowledge 
about the housing problems which exist in rural America today, yet 
the Department of Agriculture came to us and said that they had not 
been as vigorous in rural housing programs in some areas because 
HUD had a program to do things like that. 

I told the gentleman what I was glad they were not around here 
when we were drafting the Bill of Rights because they might have 



35 

told us we did not need it as it had already been covered by the Ten 
Commandments. 

I tell the gentleman from Florida that the Congress in the Rural 
Development Act of 1972 mandated to the Department of Agriculture 
that they would do specific things to help strengthen life in rural 
America. 

One of those things was to provide a system for research and devel- 
opment in problem solving to help people living in rural America. 

It has not been done and we want to attempt to continue that effort 
by at least providing the legislative mechanisms in the hope that some 
time lightning might strike and more work may be done in this area. 

Mr. Kelly. Is there time for more questions, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Kelly. It certainly would be reasonable to hope that the De- 
partment of Agriculture w T ould have some knowledge of the needs of 
rural America. If they have placed their confidence in HUD and if 
they have found adequate funds elsewhere, in light of the need for 
economy and in light of the need for lightening the burden of the 
taxpayers, then would it not be well for us to rely on the Department 
of Agriculture inasmuch as they are associated in some ways with 
rural America ? 

Mr. Rose. If the gentleman will yield, I will admit that they are 
associated in some ways with the problems of rural America. 

However, as to whether or not their efforts in promoting the Rural 
Development Act of 1972 have been all that Congress intended that 
they do, I must say that leaves in my opinion much to be desired. 

I do not think, Mr. Kelly, that we can afford to cut very far into 
the already short supply of funds that we are spending to help solve 
the problems of rural America. 

However, as to whether or not their efforts in promoting the Rural 
Development Act of 1972 have been all that Congress intended that 
they do, I must say that leaves in my opinion much to be desired. 

I do not think, Mr. Kelly, that we can afford to cut very far into 
the already short supply of funds that we are spending to help solve 
the problems of rural America. 

The migration now is moving from the larger metropolitan areas 
back into the countryside. The people who are going there are creating 
new problems for rural America which did not exist before. 

I think that this continuation of this research and development effort 
is but a modest attempt to better the quality of life in rural America. 

I certainly respect your opinion and your right to express it the 
way you have. I can understand your position but, at this particular 
juncture, I don't happen to agree with you. 

Mr. Krebs. Will the gentleman from Florida yield ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. Krebs. I would like to point out to the gentleman from Florida, 
that, if Mr. Butz and company were so concerned about lightening 
the burden of the American taxpayer, maybe they would have thought 
twice before they constructed a $150,00Cf dining room at the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. 

Mr. Kelly. I would like to respond to that. 

I have just come back from an extensive tour of the Fifth District 
of Florida and I found that the rural people are complaining about 



36 

the taxes, the threat to our survival from a huge deficit, and they are 
not really crying out for rural development. 

They are wondering whether they are going to get the money for 
the development we already have. 

It may be that we are more fortunate in the rural areas of Florida, 
but I have every reason to doubt that in light of the welfare rolls 
and the outreach program which is attempting to expand on that. 

Mr. Fithian. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the 
subcommittee a few questions on this matter, if I may ? 

Mr. Rose, does this appropriation cover efforts at reducing rural 
crime? That is, programs to combat crime? 

Mr. Rose. It very definitely could. This title V requires that each 
State has its own program and that those programs be approved State 
by State or region by region by the Department of Agriculture. 

It very definitely could include such a program as that, if the State 
coordinating committee and colleges and universities involved felt that 
that was a priority. 

I cannot give you specifics, but I recall testimony which was sub- 
mitted at our hearings where some regional groups had, in fact, used 
the funds for a type of crime prevention or citizen awareness program 
in the area of law and order. 

Mr. Fithian. Did you have any testimony before your subcommittee 
which attested to the rising crime rate in rural areas ? 

Mr. Rose. We did not as such, that is, not as you have expressed it. 

Mr. Fithian. Other programs w;ould include the attempt, as I un- 
derstand it, to entice small industry into rural areas in order to keep 
the availability of jobs up in the rural area. Is that the kind of pro- 
gram that is envisioned? 

Mr. Rose. Yes. It would allow a university or college to show local 
communities how to solve those kinds of problems. 

The regional directors of this program found that there were a great 
many small cities and towns in rural communities which did not know 
where to start in attacking some of their municipal type problems and 
that the education and the research programs which this title estab- 
lished in the local colleges and universities, enabled them to pull them- 
selves up by their own bootstraps, as it were. 

Mr. Fithian. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the com- 
mittee that there is such a program at Purdue University in my dis- 
trict, and there is a vigorous effort to try to bring this kind of 
program across the board to rural areas. 

In addition to that, it has been my observation in traveling about 
a very rural district in Indiana that these values which rural America 
treasures most — for example, efforts to keep and to pass on to the youth 
of their area some of the values which have always characterized rural 
America, these have been the very thing that they have missed most 
in this great urbanization sprawl that we have been in for the last 50 
years. 

I am wholly in sympathy with the concepts behind this bill. I regret 
that the Department of Agriculture has not seen fit to do its job. I 
think it is clear — it ought to be clear to everybody who represents a 
rural district in the United States of America — that the Department 
of Agriculture in the past period of time since this act has been enacted 
has utterly failed in their responsibilities to the Congress of the United 
States. 



37 

s 

Anyone who is unable to see that is unable to see the very concept 
upon which this bill is founded, whether it is for the modest industrial 
expansion to keep young people on the farms or near the farms for a 
part-time employment, whether it is to combat crime, or whether it is 
to improve the quality of rural life. 

The biggest problem we face right now in the rural Second District 
of Indiana is the improvement of sewage treatment facilities. 

I find it totally incomprehensible that we have a situation in which 
we are fighting and battling for funds from EPA contested by every 
urban center in America and in the State of Indiana. I find it incom- 
prehensible that the Department of Agriculture, dealing with this 
matter and dealing with these problems and with the kind of assistance 
that they have in our district, has not seen fit to act. 

I compliment the chairman of the subcommittee in the fine work 
that he is doing. 

I am certainly going to support his bill, but I would appreciate any 
additional comment you have as to, whether in your testimony in your 
hearings, you gleaned any reasonable reason for the abdication of 
responsibility on the part of the Department of Agriculture and the 
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development. 

Mr. Rose. The only reason given by the Department for a desire to 
reduce title V programs was that they felt that the Smith, Lever, and 
Hatch act for agriculture research and agriculture extension could 
carry on these types of programs just as well. 

I am sure that the gentleman has a knowledge of the programs 
carried on by the Smith, Lever, and Hatch Act. 

I for one feel that those programs already overtaxed and overbur- 
dened, are doing a very definitely important job which I think they 
are doing well ; but they are doing it in another area. 

The title V type of program is something dilferent and apart from 
what the Smith, Lever, and Hatch Act envisioned. 

Mr. Kelly. Inasmuch as we already have spent millions of dollars 
on this program even though the Department of Agriculture is not 
performing to the satisfaction of everyone, do we have a list of specific 
things that we have purchased with these millions of dollars ? 

In other words, it would seem like a wise shopper would know what 
he is getting for his money and that, if we are going to go forward 
with the spirit of Congressman de la Garza's amendment and oversee, 
then we must examine the list of what we paid for to know whether 
we want to continue the purchase. 

Do you have such a list ? 

Mr. Fithian. I do not, Mr. Chairman, but I would say in reply 
that, during the Fourth of July break, I visited the town of Monticello 
in our district. 

We have appropriated $2 million for the courthouse there as a 
result of the Federal Disaster Assistance Act as a result of the tornado. 

I walked around where the courthouse is going to be built. There 
is no building there. I suppose I could have raised the question that 
the gentleman from Florida is raising now: Where is the building? 

I will point out what must be obvious and that is, that it takes some 
planning and it takes some time to implement this. 

My concern is whether or not they made the commitment to go for- 
ward with the program at this point. I think that the planning, at 



38 

least the one I am familiar with, has been very good. I yield to the 
gentleman. 

Mr. Baldus. I think it would be useful and I am sure that Mr. Rose 
would agree that much of the motivation for the recommendation for 
discontinuing the Rural Development Act comes more from the Office 
of Management and Budget than from the Administrator of this 
Rural Development Act or even from the Department of Agriculture. 

It was a dictated policy to them. 

In their testimony they were very clear that there was a need there. 
It was clear that the methods of solving that need was available 
through this, but the recommendation for the proper amount of money 
would even be much greater than this. They would like to make that 
recommendation, but the Office of Management and Budget did not 
feel they ought to. 

Mr. Fitiiiax. This was used as the rationale ? 

Mr. Baldus. Yes; I think all of us on the subcommittee felt that 
the Department did not make the recommendation because they did 
not dare. 

Mr. Fitiiiax. Are you saying that an Administrator in the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture dared not carry out the will of Congress when 
money was already appropriated to that fund? 

Mr. Baldus. I yield to the chairman on that. 

Mr. Rose. They had not pushed for an adequate appropriation and 
they did not request but a meager sum in my opinion, that is, a meager 
percentage of what was authorized to be appropriated for these 
programs. 

As I have seen time and time again, the argument is made that, 
when a program has been funded at a low level, then the low level 
of its funding by a back door reasoning somehow becomes a reason 
for its discontinuance. 

The regional centers, which have been funded by title V, have all 
submitted annual reports of their activities, and those reports are 
available for all of us to see as a shopping list of what they have done. 

With some States such as Nevada, having received only $7,000 for 
the whole State program, you can see that we are talking about — 
in those types of instances — a very small effort for that particular 
State. 

In the next bill, which we will discuss in a minute, we attempt to 
readjust that allocation so that every State will have a minimum of 
$50,000. 

They have done a lot with what they have had. 

Mr. Fitiiiax. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The Chairmax. Is there any further discussion? 

Are there any further amendments? 

Mr. Rose. If there are no further comments, I urge my colleagues 
to support this bill and I move the previous question. 

The Chairmax. The gentleman moves that the bill H.R. 6346, as 
amended, be reported to the House with a recommendation that it 
be passed. 

Without objection, the previous question is ordered. 

All those of favor of this bill say aye; those opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. 

Mr. Peyser. Mr. Chairman, I take it a quorum is present? 



39 

The Chairman. Yes ; a quorum is present. 

The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. The bill will be re- 
ported to the House as amended with the record showing that a 
quorum was present. 

[The committee proceeded to other business.] 



BEEF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ACT 



THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee ox Livestock and Grains of the 

Committee ox Agriculture, 

Washington, B.C. 

The subcommittee mot at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1302, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. W. R. Poage (chairman of 
die subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, Nolan, Fithian, Sebelius, and 
Sjonms. 

Staff present: Robert M. Bor. counsel; Steve Allen, staff consultant ; 
John Baize, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains; 
and Glenda Temple, staff assistant. 

Mr. Poage. The subcommittee will come to order. We are meeting 
this morning- to consider legislation on which we have heard testimony 
and which we hope to mark up or agree upon, I think it is clear that 
i he developments and questions here need further study and further 
development. We are not going to pass this bill unless we have a 
pretty good consensus of opinion on it. 

Apparently we do not have it. We thought we had it at one time 
but I think it is clear that now that we do not have it. 

There are a good many differences between the Department and 
i he legislation as it is drawn. I do not think that any of them are of 
such significance that they cannot be worked out or resolved, but I 
think probably we had better get them resolved. 

Then there is a problem with the Farm Bureau which is not satisfied 
with this bill. It has proposed some changes which I am afraid will 
be completely unworkable. Some of the changes are good and some 
of them are necessary. However, I have been in politics for a good 
many years and I think I know T that you are not going to get 50 percent 
of the qualified voters to come out and vote in these elections. 

It is not that we should not have a consensus of opinion among 
producers. I think clearly that we must have that or else the program 
will not work. The program will not work if 49 percent of the producers 
are against it. You will not make it work in that case. You have to 
have a substantial percentage of your producers in favor of it. 

So I find no question about requiring that it be submitted to the 
producers. We have those who say that we have those who do not 
come in to vote. I do not think that they ought to be allowed to be 
considered for a no or a yes. The effect of requiring 50 percent of them 
to take part actually means that you count them as no vote if they do 
not come in. That would immediately kill the bill. I hope things can be 
worked out with a little thought and a little work between the parties, 

(41) 



42 



because T believe, it is possible to get people to come in and register 
and let them vote at the same time and place. 

We can develop the list of qualified voters. But if they can vote at 
the same time as they come and register, then you will not have this 
problem of coming back and you will get almost every one of them who 
registers to vote under those circumstances. 

1 think that if you get some,program like that going you can make 
it work. Also you will have solved at least one half of the problem that 
the Bureau of the Budget raises. It is opposed to this bill because they 
say it is going to cost $% million to conduct the referendum. 

The proponents of the bill say that they will pay for the referendum 
out of the checkoff, but if the referendum were to fail there would not 
be anything there to pay it out with. 

If you had your registration and vote at the same time and the same 
place you would have taken care of half of that expense. If you have 
the registration 1 week and the vote the next you have doubled your 
expenses. You have to consider that expense. Mr. Sebelius, I do not 
want to assume that I am speaking for everybody. I wonder what 
your view-s are? 

Mr. Sebeltus. I had a long discussion yesterday with the Farm 
Bureau representative on the subject of the referendum and registra- 
tion. It looked to me as though the requirement of 50 percent of the 
registered gave us a parting of the ways. As to the matter of the Bureau 
of the Budget in cost and so forth, I would think that, with ample con- 
versation in the farm magazines and so forth, we could designate a speci- 
fic date. That would save money and time. I would like to add the 
Farm Bureau support because, in many of these States, they are very 
persuasive. I feel with you that if we do not have it I do not think there 
is much chance of getting this thing out of here. I do not know what the 
mechanics would be but if 50 percent of those registered, by registering 
are not voting you do the same thing as voting no. 

I do not know, Mr. Chairman, I was looking at some of the amend- 
ments. I think we ought to get those who are interested in this bill and 
get their head together and see if we can do some negotiating where 
we can get to a formal markup. 

Mr. Poage. I am inclined to feel the same way. I think the very fact 
that we have vacant seats here this morning would attest to that and 
indicate something about what w r e are talking about. If you cannot 
get but three members out of 20 the Subcommittee on Livestock and 
Grains out of 20 to be present, then you have a problem. Obviously 
the subcommittee cannot act this morning. 

Mr. Sebelius. If we had to have two-thirds of 50 percent, we would 
not be doing very w r ell. 

Mr. Poage. That is true. It seems to me that we have reached a 
point where the most expeditious procedure might be to ask those 
who are interested in the legislation to try to get together again, 
first among themselves I am sure. That would be the cattle associa- 
tion and the Bureau. They are on record in favor of this type of 
legislation, but we have got to have these matters worked out before 
we bring it out. It seems to me that if they can work together for a 
while then they can go over the whole thing with the Department. I 
understand that within the last few days you have gone over this with 
the Department, and you do have a number of changes — many of 



43 



them mechanical — that need to be made and ought to be made. This 
ought to be done before the subcommittee attempts to try to send 
this bill up to the full committee. I would be terribly embarrassed 
to send thig thing out to the full committee as it now stands with the 
obvious difference of opinion that we have. 

I think that we could work these things out. 

There are two major stumbling blocks as I see it. One is the matter 
of registration and voting which involves the views of the Farm 
Bureau in particular, but not simply the Farm Bureau. I certainly 
agree that we need the registration program, so it is not simply a 
question of a conflict between the Farm Bureau and the Cattlemen's 
Association. It is a conflict of philosophy as to how we should handle 
this thing between groups, all of whom are recognizing that we have 
a problem that should be handled. 

If those groups that are specially interested can work out language 
there that the}' agree on, then we can go to the Department of Agri- 
culture and the Bureau of the Budget. I do not know if we can ever 
get the Bureau of the Budget with us, but we can work out most of 
the mechanics with the Department of Agriculture so that we do not 
get on the floor and have somebody rise and say that the Depart mejit, 
Cannot support this and that. We do not want that opposition. We. 
cannot afford to have that. The Department of Agriculture's views are 
close enough to the general idea that they can be resolved but they 
have not been resolved. 

I think what we need to do is to get it worked. out now and bring it 
back to the subcommittee and let us go through the thing again, as 
I see it. Several of the members have now come in. Does anybody 
have any comments? 

Mr. Fithiax. That seems like an effective and orderly way to 
proceed. 

Mr. Poage. We are 20 members in the subcommittee and we only 
have 5 here now. We obviously cannot proceed this way. 

Mr. Fithian. If you like I can call for a quorum call just before 
you turn to vote. 

Mr. Poage. I see that we have representatives of the Department, 
of the cattle raisers, and of the Farm Bureau. Do any of you all feel 
that this is unreasonable?' 

Mr. D eva net. I think that is reasonable, Mr. Chairman. I think 
we can get together and try to work out our differences. We would be 
glad to do it. 

Mr. Barron. Mr. ChaHnan, we have approached the Farm Bureau.' 
I do not know whether we can do any good or not. We do feel that as 
far as the USD A is concerned that we have worked out our differences. 

Mr. Poage. You have ironed' out the differences I think, but you 
have got to bring in a whole new bill here,, as I see it. li we keep 
putting patches on this thing we are going to have a tough time. You 
remember putting patches on the old tire tube? You are in bad shape 
and I think we better get a new tube in here. 

Mr. Barron. The bill is pretty marked up the way it i< now. yes, [ 
agree. We will continue to make every effort to reconcile our' 
differences. 

Mr. Poage. I want the interested parties to understand that this 
subcommittee has no intention to try to unduly delay this. 



44 



We will hold further hearings any time when they become appro- 
priate. It is not our disposition to try to refuse to act on it, but I 
think we will save time and probably get much better legislation if 
We can now just ask the interested parties to try to go back and 
bring in something completely— complete the legislation to the sub- 
committee and hear it at a later date. 

Is there any objection?, If not, that is what we will do. 

Gentlemen, we will be glad to have you work on it. We would be 
glad to have you talk with us at any time. The subcommittee will be 
glad to meet, again at an appropriate date when we think we can 
bring something out that we can all support. 

Does anyone have any more comments? 

If there is nothing further, the subcommittee will stand at recess 
subject to the call of the Chair. We will call it back. 

[Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m. the subcommittee recessed.] 



BEEF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ACT 



MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains 

of the Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 1302, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. W. R. Poage (chairman, 
Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, Melcher, Bergland, Litton, 

Weaver, High tower, Bedell, Sebelius, Thone, Johnson, and Hagedorn. 

Also present: Robert M. Bor, counsel; Steve Allen, staff consultant; 

John Baize, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains; 

and Glenda Temple, staff assistant. 

Mr. Poage. The committee will please come to order. 
We are meeting here this morning in order to consider a new bill, 
H.R. 7656, which attempts to take care of various changes in the 
Beef Research and Information Act. We have a letter from tne 
Department of Agriculture which I shall read into the record. 

This letter is -dated June 16 and it is addressed to Mr. Foley,- 
chairman of the committee. 

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to the request of June 13 from the 
Committee's staff for the Department's position on H.R. 7656, a bill "to enable 
cattle producers to establish, finance, and carry out a coordinated program of 
'research, producer and consumer information, and to improve, maintain, and 
develop markets for cattle, beef products." 

Department personnel have worked closely with the Beef Development Task 
Force in redrafting H.R. 3718, which was introduced on June 5 as H.R. 7056. 
The administrative and legal problems referred to in the report of April 1 1 on H. R. 
3718 have been largely overcome. However, the Department's concern with the 
"value added" features have not been fully eliminated. HAl. 7656 requires each 
producer-buyer and slaughterer to collect from the producer-seller an assessment 
based on the value of the cattle involved in a transaction. But only slaughterers 
are required to maintain and make available for inspection records of such trans- 
actions. The Department recognizes that because of the size of the cattle industry 
and the complexity of cattle marketing, the assessment method contained in the 
bill provides for an equitable and practicable collection system. 

The Department also agrees with the Beef Development Task Force that the 
collection system will be largely self-policing and that adequate enforcement 
among producers can be accomplished on a complaint basis as necessary. If the 
Committee concurs with this view of enforcement requirements, and so indicates 
in its report on the bill, the Department has no legal or administrative objections 
to the enactment of H.R. 7656. 

The Administration's position with respect to new Federal spending programs 
and the objections of the Oflice of Management and Budget to promotion pro- 
grams for agricultural commodities remain as stated in the April 11 report on 
H.R. 3718. 

(45) 



77-139 O - 77 



46 



T think now it might be in order to ask tlio representatives of tho 
Beef Development Task Force to explain the new hill and the various 
changes in it . 

Mr. Barron, would you and your group please do this? 

[The bill U.K. 7656 appears on p.52J 

STATEMENT OF 0. J. BARRON, JR., CHAIRMAN, BEEF 
DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE 

Mr. Barrox. Would you like a little summary? 

Mr. Poage. It would he helpful, yes. 

Mr. Barrox. What we are aiming at is enabling legislation for 
cattlemen to conduct a referendum on whether a two-thirds majority 
favors a uniform collection for research, consumer information, pro- 
motion, and market development. While it is not spelled out in the bill, 
in the tentative order that we prepared and are working on, the De- 
partment of Agriculture people, we visualize the amount of collection 
will be three-tenths of 1 percent, or 30 cents on $100 value of the ani- 
mal. We also visualize that this can range, the amount of the collec- 
tion, from one tenth of 1 percent to five-tenths of 1 percent. If it were 
any greater than that it would have to go back to the producers for a 
referendum and further approval. 

The program is voluntary in that a producer may, upon request, get 
a referendum. 

The administration of the fund will be by a 68 member Beef Board 
comprised of cattlemen nominated by existing cattlemen's organiza- 
tions and appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

The Beef Board will contract with other organizations or insti- 
tutions, such as the National Livestock and Meat Board, State beef 
councils, universities, private agencies for special programs on research 
and all of the things enumerated in the bill. 

The opportunities which we see can come into the industry through 
this eifort would be consumer education on purchasing power, nu- 
trition, beef economics, research on nutrition, health, marketing, pro- 
duction, new beef products, improved merchandising methods, re- 
duced cost of production, and so forth. 

The cost to the Government will be nothing inasmuch as the Gov- 
ernment will be reimbursed for all administrative and auditing ex- 
penses, and the cost of the referendum, assuming, of course, that the 
referendum passes. 

Our Latest estimate on the cost of the referendum is $319,000. We 
have gotten that down from, T believe, $750,000. This estimate was 
made by the AS< JS part of the USDA. 

The substantive changes we have made in the bill, the last time we 
met, Mr. Poage, you instructed us to get with the USDA attorneys 
and work out our differences. We have changed the title from "Beef 
Research and Consumer Information Act" to "Beef Research and 
Information Act." This was at the suggestion of Representative 
Foley. 

We also include a new definition of "consumer information" to 
replace "consumer education." This is all spelled out in the bill. 

Then, working with the USDA attorneys, the definition of "trans- 
action" on page 5, line 9, basing assessment on the value of trans- 



47 



action rather than on value of cattle. Problems regarding death loss 
and loss in value were eliminated by doing this. 

The definition of "slaughterer" on page 12, line 5, was added in 
place of "handler." We felt this clarified exactly what we meant by 
{ 'slaughterer." 

Page 7, line 11, "only slaughterers shall maintain and make avail- 
able books and records for inspection." Prior to that any bu}^er or 
seller would have been included. This will simplify enforcement while 
having no effect on collections. This was at the suggestion of USDA 
and other parts of the beef industry. 

On page 14, line 22, "The Secretary shall be reimbursed for the 
cost of the referendum." This was suggested by the USDA at the 
insistence of OMB. Originally, following the other commodity bills, 
we had expected that the Government would pay for the referendum, 
but this does change it and the producers will pay for it from funds col- 
lected by the program. 

On page 16, line 7, "refund must be requested within 60 days instead 
of 30 days." This was another change suggested by the USDA. 

Mr. Chairman, those are substantially the changes which were made, 
the substantive changes. There were some word changes for clari- 
fication but those were'the-anain substantive changes in the bill. 

Mr. Poage. With those changes I understand the Department is 
willing to accept the bill and the industry feels the bill is acceptable. 

The cattle representatives, I understand, want to go ahead with 
this bill. 

Mr. Barron. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Poage. A two-thirds majority appear to be for it. If it does' 
go into effect it will cost the Government nothing. 

Mr. Barron. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Bergland. If I may inquire of Mr. Barron — on' page 10, line 
12, you deal with the matter of selecting the person^ to serve on the 
Beef Board. It refers to the power of the Secretary: 

(b) Providing that the Beef Board, and alternates therefore, shall be composed 
of cattle producers appointed by the Secretary from nominations submitted by 
eligible producer organizations, associations, or cooperatives, within the geographic 
area, and certified pursuant to section 15, or, if the Secretary determines that a 
substantial number of producers are not members of or their interests are not- 
represented by any such eligible organizations, associations, or cooperatives, from' 
nominations made by such producers in the manner authorized by the Secretary 
so that* the representation of producers on the Board shall reflect, to the extent 
practicable, the proportion of cattle produced in each geographic area of the United 
States as defined by the Secretary. 

Does that in your view suggest that the traditional cattlemen's 
association, including livestock, feeders, will submit nominations, 
and would it be limited to those kinds dealing exclusively with beef? 

What about the general farm organizations? Would they be invited? 

Mr. Barron. They also would be invited; yes, sir. 

Further back in the bill there is an outline of the criteria which 
the Secretary would use in determining the eligibility of organiza- 
tions. # We feel the general farm organizations would be included; 
yes, sir. 

Mr. Bergland. I think you are aware that another subcommittee 
of this Commit te on Agriculture has reported out a bill dealing with 
the peach industry. 

Mr. Barron. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Bergland. The subcommittee in thai instance recommended 

that a third of the members of the Board be consumers. How that is 
defined I do not know. I imagine we are all consum 

[s this a matter to which you have given some consideration? The 
reason I raise the point is that there is a good deal of consumer interest 
in this Congress. 1 wondered whether you have thought about this and 
what are tho problems, if any. 

Mi-. Barron. Yes, sir, we certainly realize the consumer is the 
customer for beef, but we do not think that the consume: 
should be in a position of decisionmaking on this program. We certainly 
would welcome the advice and counsel of consumers. We realize we 
have to work with consumers. 

A good deal of the bill and the purpose of the bill are for consumer 
education, for instance. However, as far as the administration is 
concerned, we think that should be in the hands of the people putting 
the money into the program. 

Mr. Bergland. Thank you very much, Mr. Barron. 

That is all I have now, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Poage. The consumer pays no part of the bill and therefore 
should have no part in the running of the bill. 

Mr. Sebelius? 

Mr. Sebelius. We have gotten the cost down to $319,000. The 
language in the referendum section has not been changed except in 
the one item. How do we envision we will hold this referendum now 
to 50 percent of the package of $319,000? 

Mr. Barrox. Tentatively, the election would be a w T alk-in election 
as the ASCS county offices. The office will be open for 1 week for 5 
working days and in addition have an absentee provision prior to the 
week it is set up. This would be advertised at a local level, of course, 
and all producers would certainly be apprised of the times, places, 
and the purpose. 

Mr. Sebelius. Do you envision some form of official notice in the 
county, to general farm organizations and cattle organizations, so 
they will be advising their membership when and where they can go 
in order to certify themselves in order to cast their ballots? 

Mr. Barrox. Yes. In fact, our plans include making a very thorough 
campaign really to apprise and to tell the producer what the program 
is all about, explain it to them thoroughly, and certify we would make 
every effort to have the largest possible turnout. 

Mr. Sebelius. Do you feel this is the most efficient way in order 
to get the coverage we need in order that everyone may express 
himself on the subject? 

Mr. Barrox. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Sebelius. I think you are right. It is better than getting a 
ballot in the mail, filling it out, and getting it back. Far too many 
farmers are busy, but they know they have to go by the ASCS office 
to get the envelope. I think more will cast their ballots this way rather 
than if they had to mail in an envelope. They perhaps might have 
que>tion<. 

We are certainly not risking too much in your effort to have a 
referendum. 

Mr. Barrox. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Sebelius. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. I have been trying 
to read up on the changes. 



49 



Mr. Poage. Anything further gentlemen? 

Mr. Bergland. My State of Minnesota has beef promotion activity 
under way. 
■ Mr. Barron. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bergland. It is an industry thing. 
Mr. Barron. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Bergland. To what extent would this complement or conflict 
with any State plan? Do you see any opportunity here for cooperation 
in order to develop and enhance the activity of the various State 
efforts? 

Mr. Barron. Yes, sir, we certainly hope so. We have worked closely 
with the State beef councils. We hope that there will be a complement 
tary program. 

In fact, we have a provision in the tentative order to return 10 per- 
cent of the funds collected through this program to bona fide State 
programs, such as the one in Minnesota. 

In States where the population warrants, it could even make a con- 
tract with State organizations and go beyond the 10 percent. 
Mr. Bergland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Poage. Are there any other comments or questions? 
I see section 16 handed out. I don't know an}- thing about the pur- 
pose of it. 

Mr. Bor. Mr. Chairman, this is a provision which had been sug- 
gested by the cattle industry and had been contained in a bill which 
was introduced in the* Senate. Originally it was not included in the bill 
that was introduced he^e^m the House because it would have raised 
some questions of jurisdiction as to which committee in the House- 
would have jurisdiction over the matter. 

It would seem appropriate to have it included in our bill in order to 
help avoid some question which has arisen with respect to patents and^ 
copyrights with regard to other marketing orders. 

Mr. Poage. You think, then, we should put this in our bill? 
Mr. Bor. This has been suggested by the cattle industry as a pro- 
vision 

Mr. Poage. I understand the desirability of the provision. You well 
pointed out it raises a jurisdictional question. 

Do you think we ought to put it into our bill? If it is to be in the 
Senate bill, why should we put it in our bill? 

Mr. Bor. I think you raise a good point. This perhaps can be taken* 
care of in conference, or if we do include it in our bill, we perhaps need 
a waiver from the Rules Committee. 

Mr. Poage. I know that. If we put it in our bill, we run into juris- 
dictional questions. The question I ask is, why are we doing it? What 
do we gain by putting it in our bill except getting further trouble before 
the Rules Committee and on the floor? We will run into enough of that 
without putting in something else. Why do we need this in the House 
bill? If there is need, I want to know. Is there an}' real need for putting 
it in the House bill? 

I think you are telling us the Senate will have it in their bill, and 
it is perfectly in order in the Senate bill, as I understand it. Is that 
right? 

Mr. Bor. That is my understanding, sir. The only problem that one 
might whisk away is the question of whether it will get through the 



50 



Senate. Assuming it does, T think we can leave it out of our bill, and 

this can be taken care of later on in conference. 

Mr. Poage. It would seem to me this is jusl going out hunting for 

trouble which we do not need to hunt. 1 think we have all the trouble 
we want to deal with right now. 

Mr. Barrow ILK. 765G, the companion bill, has not been intro- 
duced in the Senate as of now. Their intention is to wait and take the 
House bill at the time the House lias acted on the bill. 

Consideration would be whether it would be best to add this now 
with the waiver from the Judiciary Committee or put it in the Senate 
version and have it go before the House twice. That is the reason we 
gave it to you at this time. 

Mr. Poage. The whole question is whether it is advisable to put it 
in the House bill. If anybody has any judgment on that let us express 
it. I have expressed myself. I think it is not. 

I think it would be perfectly foolish to put it in the House bill 
when it is something which may cause further questions. 

Mr. Berglaxd. If I may inquire of counsel: In the absence of 
section 16 what would happen in the event the property has developed 
some value? To whom would the royalties flow? 

Mr. Bor. I would like to ask one of the attorneys from the Depart- 
ment to respond. We had this same type of issue come up in the mar- 
keting orders, promotion and research orders with regard to other com- 
modities such as egor<> and cotton, particularly cotton. 

Mr. Cherxauskas. The problem with the patent is that it raises a 
question as to who owns airy patents which wxnild emanate from re- 
search under this bill. Will the industry, a nebulous creature for these 
purposes, own the patents or will they be owned, in effect, by the 
Government which is supervising the entire program? 

I gather that the intent of this amendment, section 16; is to allow 
the Government to hold any patents in trust for the industry and allow 
it to be utilized in the public interest. 

This particular amendment would clarify that question as to who 
owns the patent rights to any development. 

It could very well be that the intent of the bill in toto is that 
patents emanating from any research supervised by the Government 
under the contribution by industry would be held by the Secretary 
in trust for the industry. Unless that area is clarified the title question 
w r ould remain in doubt. Perhaps one way to do this would be to put it 
in the report, the intent of the committee in reporting the bill. The 
intent sought by section 16 can be accomplished in this way. 

In other words, say something in the committee report that you 
intend that the Secretary shall hold title to the patent for the benefit 
of the industry. 

Mr. Poage. I think we understand that if we do not act, if nobody 
acts, any patent would belong to the Government. If we do act it will 
belong to the Board. 

If we act we certainly raise the question of the Rules Committee. 
I just do not like the idea of weighting this thing down with a lot of 
extra weight unless we have to. I do not see that we have to because it 
seems to me to be perfectly clear that the other body can and probably 
will take care of the situation within the rules. We are not asking them 



51 



to do anything outside the rules. Their rules are different from ours 
and it would be taken care of. 

To me it does not make much sense to tie this on. 

Mr. Sebelius. I think we might put in language in the record that 
any regulations issued by the Secretary to implement this could well 
take care of the problem. 

Mr. Poage. Is there legislation which exists at the present time 
which would make these patents the property of the United States? 
What do you lawyers say about that? 

Mr. Cherxauskas. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe 
it should be construed that the Beef Board, inasmuch as it is and will 
be the agency of the Secretary, really is the Secretary for the purpose 
of holding title to the patents — so, if that can be clear in the report 
perhaps the problem can be obviated. 

Mr. Poage. Does anybody move to put this in the bill? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Poage. If not, there is no point in it. 

It occurs to me there are a couple of typographical errors here. In 
the last 15 years there have not been 15 bills come from the Govern- 
ment Printing Office which did not have errors in them. It used to be 
years ago we got correct bills but the Government Printing Office has 
gotten worse than the Post Office. 

Mr. Thoxe. No, it is not worse than the Post Office. 

Mr. Poage. Let's say it has fallen into the evil ways of the Post 
Office. We alwa} T s have to make corrections. Again, merely as a matter 
of mechanics, as far as I am concerned, I will ask that we correct the 
typographical errors rather than to go on the floor with a series of 
committee amendments. The minute you go on the floor with a series 
of committee amendments everyone wonders what they change. It 
may not change anything, but it is an amendment nevertheless. 

I think we would be better off to ask to correct typographical errors 
than to go on the floor with committee amendments if we can avoid it. 
We want to avoid everything we can. 

Do I get a motion? 

Mr. Berglaxd. I move the staff be instructed to correct the tech- 
nical and tvpographical errors contained in the printed copy of the bill 
H.R. 7656" 

Mr. Poage. Without objection it is so ordered. 

Mr. Berglaxd. I move the bill be reported to the full committee. 

Mr. Poage. All those in favor? Opposed? 

It is unanimous. The bill will be reported with the recommendation 
that it be passed. 

We thank our visitors and we thank the members who came in to 
enable us to get a quorum. 

The committee will stand in recess subject to call of the Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 10:10 a.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at the call of the Chair.] 

[H.R. 7656 follows:] 






94tii CONGRESS 
1st Session 



H. R. 7656 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

June 5, 1975 

Mr. Foley (for himself, Mr. Poaqe, Mr. Wampler, Mr. Skbeliub, Mr. Alex- 
ander, Mr. Bergland, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Cederbero, Mr. de la Garza, Mr. 
IIightower, Mr. Jones of Tennessee, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. 
Litton, Mr. Mahon, Mr. Patman, Mr. Railsback, Mr. Shrtver, Mr. 
Skubitz, Mr. Thone, Mr. Thornton, and Mr. Traxler) introduced the 
following bill ; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 



A BILL 

To enable cattle producers to establish, finance, and carry out a 
coordinated program of research, producer and consumer 
information, and promotion to improve, maintain, and 
develop markets for cattle, beef, and beef products. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That this Act shall be known as the "Beef Research and 

4 Information Act". 

5 LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY 

6 i Sec 2. Beef constitutes one of the basic, natural foods 

7 in the diet. It is produced by many individual cattle pro- 



53 



2 

1 ducers throughout the United States. Cattle, beef, and beef 

2 products move in interstate and foreign commerce and those 

3 which do not move in such channels of commerce directly 

4 burden or affect interstate commerce of cattle, beef, and 

5 beef products. The maintenance and expansion of existing 

6 markets and the development of new or improved markets 

7 and uses are vital to the welfare of cattle producers and 

8 those concerned with marketing, using, and processing beef 

9 as well as the general economy of the Xation. The produc- 

10 tion and marketing of cattle, beef, and beef products by 

11 numerous individual persons in the cattle and beef industry 

12 have prevented the development and carrying out of ade- 

13 quatc and coordinated programs of research, information. 

14 and promotion necessary for the maintenance of markets 

15 and the development of new products of, and markets for 

16 cattle, beef, or beef products. Without an effective and co- 

17 ordinated method for assuring cooperative and collective 

18 action in providing for and financing such programs, indi- 

19 vidual cattle producers are unable to provide, obtain, or 

20 carry out the research, consumer and producer information, 

21 and promotion necessary to maintain and improve markets 

22 for cattle, beef, and beef products. 

23 It has long been recognized that it is in the public in- 

24 terest to provide an adequate, steady supply of high quality 

25 beef and beef products readily available to the consumers of 



54 



1 the Nation. Maintenance of markets and the development 

2 of new markets, both domestic and foreign, are essential .to 

3 the cattle industry if the consumers of beef and beef products 

4 me to be assured of an adequate, steady supply of such 

5 products at reasonable prices. 

6 It is therefore declared to be the policy of the Congress 

7 and the purpose of this Act that it is essential and in the 

8 public interest, through the exercise of the powers provided 

9 herein, to authorize and enable the establishment of an 

10 orderly procedure for the development and the financing 

11 through fln Adequate assessment of ah effective and continuous 

12 coordinated program of research, consumer , information, 

13 producer information, and promotion designed to strengthen 

14 the cattle and beef industry's position in the marketplace, 

15 and maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and 

16 uses for United States beef. Nothing in this Act shall be 

17 construed to mean, or provide for, control of production or 

18 otherwise limit the right of individual cattle producers to 

19 produce c?.ttle or beef. 

20 DEFINITIONS : 

21 Sec. 3. As used in this Act— 

22 (a) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of 

23 Agriculture or any other officer or employee of the Depart- 

24 ment of Agriculture to whom there has heretofore been dele- 



55 



4 

1 gated, or to whom there may hereafter he delegated, the 

2 authority to act in his stead. 

3 (b) The term "person" means any individual, group of 

4 individuals, partnership, corporation, association, cooperative, 

5 or any other entity. 

6 (c) The term "cattle" means live domesticated bovine 

7 quadrupeds. 

8 (d) The term "beef" means the flesh of cattle. 

9 (e) The term "beef products" means products produced 

10 in whole or in part from cattle, exclusive of milk and prod- 

11 ucts made therefrom. 

12 (f) The term "producer" means any person who owns 

13 or acquires ownership of cattle: Provided, That a person 

14 shall not be considered to be a producer if his only share 

15 in the proceeds of a sale of cattle or beef is a sales commis- 

16 sion, handling fee, or other service fee. 

17 (g) The term "producer-buyer" means a producer who 

18 buys cattle. 

19 (h) The term "producer-seller" means a producer who 

20 sells cattle. 

21 (i) The term "United States" means the fifty States of 

22 the United States of America and the District of Columbia. 

23 (j) The term "promotion" means any action to advance 

24 the image or desirability of beef and beef products. 

25 (k) The term "research" means any type of research 



56 



5 

1 to advance the desirability, marketability, production, or 

2 quality of cattle, beef, and beef products. 

3 (1) The tenn "consumer information" means facts, data* 

4 and other information that will assist consumers and other 

5 persons in making evaluations and decisions regarding the 
G purchasing, preparation, and utilization of beef and beef 

7 products. 

8 (m) The term "producer information" means facts, 

9 data, and other information that will assist producers in 

10 making decisions that lead to increased efficiency, lower cost 

11 of production, a stable supply of cattle, and the development 

12 of new markets. 

13 (n) The term "marketing" means the sale or other 

14 disposition of cattle, beef, or beef products, in any channel 

15 of commerce. 

1G (o) The term "commerce" means interstate, foreign, or 

17 intrastate commerce. 

18 (p) The term "transaction" means the transfer of owu- 

19 ership of cattle or beef through a sale, trade, or other means 

20 of exchange. , 

21 (q) The term "slaughterer" means any person, speci- 

22 fied in the order or the rules and regulations issued there- 

23 under, who slaughters cattle, including cattle of his own 

24 production. 



57 



6 

1 BEEF RESEARCH AND PROMOTION ORDER 

2 S*X\ 4. To effectuate the declared policy of this Act, the 
'S Secretary shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, issue 

4 and from time to time amend an order applicable to pro- 

5 ducers and slaughterers. Such an order shall be applicable 

6 to all areas in the United States. 

7 NOTICE AND HEARING 

g Sec. 5. Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe 

9 that the issuance of an order will tend to effectuate the 

10 declared policy of this Act, he shall give due notice and 

11 6pportunit} T for hearing upon a proposed order. Such hearing 

12 may be requested and proposal for an order submitted by an 

13 organization certified pursuant to section 15 of this Act, 

14 or by an} r interested person affected by the provisions of 

15 this Act, including the Secretary. 

1 6 FINDING AND ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER 

17 Sec. 6. After notice and opportunity for hearing as pro- 

18 vided in section 5, the Secretary shall issue an order if he 

19 finds, and sets forth in such order, upon the evidence intro- 

20 duced at such hearing, that the issuance of such order and all 

21 the terms and conditions thereof will tend to effectuate the 

22 declared policy of this Act. 

23 PERMISSIVE TERMS IN ORDER 

24 Sec. 7. Any order issued pursuant to this Act shall con- 



58 



7 

1 tain one or more of the following terms and conditions, and 

2 except as provided in section 8, no others : 

3 (a) Providing for the establishment, issuance, cffectua- 

4 tion, and administration of appropriate plans or projects for 

5 advertising, promotion, producer information, and consumer 

6 information with respect to the use of cattle, beef, or beef 

7 products and for the disbursement of necessary funds for such 

8 purposes : Provided, however, That any such plan or project 

9 shall be directed toward increasing the general demand for 

10 cattle, beef, or beef products. No reference to a private brand 

11 or trade name shall be made if the Secretary determines that 

12 such reference will result in undue discrimination against the 

13 cattle, beef, or beef products of other persons. 

14 (b) Providing for, establishing, and carrying on re- 

15 search, market development projects, and studies with respect 

16 to sale, distribution, marketing, utilization, or production of 
I? cattle, beef, or beef products, and the creation of new prod- 

18 nets thereof, to the end that the production, marketing, and 

19 utilization of cattle, beef, or beef products may be encour- 

20 aged, expanded, improved, or made more acceptable, and 

21 the data collected by such activities may be disseminated, 

22 and providing for the disbursement of necessary funds for 

23 such purposes. 

24 (c) Providing that slaughterers shall maintain and make 



59 



8 

1. available for the inspection such books and records as may be 

2 required by any order or regulations issued pursuant to this 

3 Act and for the filing of reports by such persons at the time, 

4 in the manner, and having content prescribed by the order or 

5 regulations to the end that information and data shall be made 

6 available to the Beef Board and to the Secretary which is 

7 appropriate or necessary to the effectuation, administration, 
$ or enforcement of the Act, or of any order or regulation issued 
9 pursuant to this Act: Provided, however, That all information 

10 so obtained shall be kept confidential by all officers and 

11 employees of the Department of Agriculture and of the Beef 

12 Board, and by all officers and employees of contracting agen- 

13 cies having access to such information, and only such infor- 

14 mation so furnished or acquired as the Secretary deems 

15 relevant shall be disclosed by them, and then only in a suit or 

16 administrative hearing brought at the direction, or upon the 

17 request, of tlio Secretary, or to which he or any officer of 

18 the United States is a party, and involving the order with 

19 reference to which the information so to be disclosed was 

20 furnished or acquired. Nothing in this section shall be deemed 

21 to prohibit ( 1 ) the issuance of general statements based upon 

22 the reports of the number of persons subject to an order or 

23 statistical data collected therefrom, which statements do 

24 not identify the information furnished by any person, (2) the 

25 publication of general statements relating to refunds made 



60 



9 

1 by the Beef Board during any specific period, which statc- 

2 ments do not identify any person to whom refunds arc made, 

3 or (3) the publication by direction of the Secretary of the 

4 name of any person violating any order, together with a 

5 statement of the particular provisions of the order violated 

6 by such person. Any such officer or employee violating the 

7 provision of the subsection shall, upon conviction, be sub- 

8 jected to a fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment 

9 for not more than one year, or to both, and if an officer or 

10 employee of the Beef Board or the Department of Agricul- 

11 ture, he shall be removed from office. 

12 (d) Terms and conditions incidental to and not incon- 

13 sistent with the terms and conditions specified in this Act 

14 and necessary to effectuate the other provisions of such 

15 order. 

16 REQUIRED TERMS IN ORDER 

17 Sec. 8. Any order issued pursuant to this Act sliall 

18 contain the following terms and conditions; 

19 (a). Providing for the establishment and appointment, 

20 l>y the Secretary, of a Beef Board which shall consist of not 

21 more than sixty-eight members, and alternates therefor, and 

22 defining its powers and duties which shall include only the 

23 powers (1) to administer such order in accordance with its 

24 terms and provisions, (2) to make rules and regulations to 

25 effectuate the terms and provisions of such order, (3) to 



61 



10 

1 receive, investigate, and report to the Secretary complaints 

2 of violations of such order, (4) to recommend to the Secre- 

3 tary amendments to such order. The term of an appointment 

4 to the Beef Board shall he for three years with no member 

5 serving more than six consecutive years, except that initial 

6 appointment shall be proportionately for one, two, and three 

7 years: Provided, That the Beef Board may appoint from its 

8 members an executive committee, consisting of not less than 

9 seven nor more than eleven members, with authority to 

10 employ a staff and conduct routine business within the 

11 policies determined by the Beef Board. 

12 (b) Providing that the Beef Board, and alternates thcre- 

13 for, shall be composed of cattle producers appointed by the 

14 Secretary from nominations submitted by eligible producer 

15 organizations, associations, or cooperatives, within the geo- 

16 graphic area, and certified pursuant to section 15, or, if the 

17 Secretary determines that a substantial number of producers 

18 are not members of or their interests are not represented by 

19 any such eligible organizations, associations, or cooperatives, 

20 from nominations made by such producers in the manner 

21 authorized by the Secretary so that the representation of 

22 producers on the Board shall reflect, to the extent practicable, 

23 the proportion of cattle produced in each geographic area of 

24 the United States as defined by the Secretary: Provided, 

25 That the Beef Board shall from time to time, with the ap- 



62 



11 

1 proval of the Secretary, redesignate representation on the 

2 Beef Board so as to reflect the proportion of cattle in each 

3 geographic area: Provided, however, That each such desig- 

4 nated geographic area shall be entitled to at least one rep- 

5 resentative on the Beef Board. 

6 (c) Providing that the Beef Board shall, subject to the 

7 provisions of subsection (g) of this section, develop and 

8 submit to the Secretary for his approval any advertising, 

9 sales promotion, consumer information, producer information, 

10 research, and development plans or projects, and that any 

11 such plan or project must be approved by the Secretary 

12 before becoming effective. 

13 (d) Providing that the Beef Board shall, subject to the 

14 provisions of subsection (g) of this section, submit to the 

15 Secretaiy for his approval budgets on a fiscal period basis of 

16 its anticipated expenses and disbursements in the adminis- 

17 tration of the order, including probable costs of advertising, 

18 promotion, producer information, consumer information, re- 

19 search, and development projects. 

20 (e) Providing, that— 

21 (1) In each transaction where a producer sells or 
22 1 otherwise transfers ownership of cattle to any other pro- 

23 ducer, each such producer-seller shall pay to the pro- 

24 ducer-buyer and each porducer-buyer shall collect from 

25 the producer-seller an assessment based on the value of 



63 



12 

1 the cattle involved in 'the transaction. Each producer 

2 who sells to a slaughterer or otherwise arranges for the 

3 slaughter of his cattle shall pay to the slaughterer and 

4 the slaughterer shall collect from such producer an assess- 

5 ment based on the value of the cattle involved. The 

6 slaughterer shall remit assessment (s) collected to the 

7 Beef Board in the manner prescribed by the order or 

8 the regulations issued thereunder, including any assess- 

9 ment(s) due at time of slaughter on cattle of his own 

10 production. In the event no sales transaction occurs at 

11 the point of slaughter, a fair value shall be attributed 

12 to the cattle at the time of slaughter for the purposes of 

13 determining the assessment: Provided, That the Beef 

14 Board may exempt from or vary the assessment on trans- 

15 actions of breeding animals or classes of breeding animals 

16 imtil time of slaughter: Provided further, That the Beef 

17 Board may collect directly from any producer any assess- 

18 ments that he collected under the provisions of this Act, 

19 c - which are not passed along in the usual manner due to 

20 the loss in value of the cattle. 

21 (2) The rate of assessment shall be as prescribed by 

22 the order and shall provide for such expenses and ex- 

23 penditures, including provision for a reasonable reserve, 

24 and any referendum and administrative costs incurred by 

25 the Secretary under this Act, as the Secretary finds are 



64 



13 

1 reasonable and likely to be incurred by the Beef Board 

2 under the order during any period specified by him. 

3 (3) To facilitate the collection of assessments, the 

4 Beef Board may specify different procedures for slaugh- 

5 terers, or classes of slaughterers, to recognize differences 

6 in marketing practices or procedures utilized in the 

7 industry. 

8 (4) The Secretary may maintain a suit against any 

9 person subject to the order for the collection of such 

10 assessment and the several district courts of the United 

11 States are hereby vested with jurisdiction to entertain 

12 such suits regardless of the amount in controversy. 

13 (f) Providing that the Beef Board shall maintain such 

14 books and records and prepare and submit such reports from 

15 time to time to the Secretary as he may prescribe, and for 

16 appropriate accounting by the Beef Board with respect to 

17 the receipt and disbursement of all funds entrusted to it. 

18 (?) Providing that the Beef Board, with the approval 

19 of the Secretary, may enter into contracts or agreements for 

20 development and carrying out the activities authorized under 
2i the order pursuant to section 7 (a) and (b) and for the pay- 

22 ment of the cost thereof with funds collected pursuant to the 

23 order. Any such contract or agreement shall provide that 

24 such contractors shall develop and submit to the Beef Board 

25 a plan or project together with a budget or budgets which 



65 



14 

1 shall show estimated costs to he incurred for such plan or 

2 project, and that any such plan or project shall become effec- 

3 tive upon the approval of the Secretary, and further, shall 

4 provide that the contracting parties shall keep accurate rec- 

5 ords of all of their activities and make periodic reports to 

6 the Beef Board of activities carried out and an accounting for 

7 funds received and expended, and such other reports as the 

8 Secretary may require. 

9 (h) Providing that no funds collected by the Beef Board 

10 under the order shall in any manner be used for the purpose 

11 of influencing governmental policy or action, except as pro- 

12 vided by subsection (a) (4) of this section. 

13 (i) Providing the Beef Board members, and alternates 
14 ; therefore, shall serve without compensation, 'but shall be 
■*** reimbursed for their reasonable expenses incurred in per- 

16 forming their duties as members of the Beef Board. 

17 REQUIREMENT OF REFERENDUM AND CATTLE PRODUCER 

18 «g APPROVAL 

19 Sec. 9. The Secretary shall conduct a referendum as 

20 soon as practicable among producers who at any time, dur- 

21 ing a consecutive twelve-month representative period pre- 

22 ceding the date of the referendum, as determined by the 

23 Secretary, have been engaged in the production of cattle 

24 for the purpose of ascertaining whether the issuance of an 

25 order is approved or favored by such producers. No order 



66 



15 

1 issued pursuant to this Act shall be effective unless the Sec- 

2 retary determines that the issuance of such order is approved 

3 or favored by not less than two-thirds of the producers vot- 

4 ing in such referendum, or by a majority of the producers 

5 voting in such referendum if such majority owned not less 

6 than two-thirds of the cattle owned by producers voting in 

7 the referendum. For purposes of determining the number 

8 of cattle owned by producers voting, each producer shall 

9 be credited with the largest number of cattle owned on any 

10 one day during the representative period. The Secretary 

11 shall be reimbursed from assessments collected by the Beef 

12 Board for any expenses incurred for the conduct of the 

13 referendum. 

14 SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION OF ORDERS 

15 Sec. 10. (a) The Secretary shall, whenever he finds 

16 that any order issued under this Act, or any provision (s) 

17 thereof, obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the declared 

18 policy of this Act, terminate or suspend the operation of such 

19 order or such provision (s) thereof. 

20 (b) The Secretary may conduct a referendum at any 

21 time, and shall hold a referendum on request of 10 per cen- 
22\ turn or more of the number of producers voting in the 

23 referendum approving the order, to determine whether such 

24 producers favor the termination or suspension of the order, 

25 and he shall suspend or terminate such order six months after 



67 



16 

1 lie determines that suspension or termination of the order is 

2 i approved or favored 'by a majority of the producers 

3 voting in such referendum who, during a representative 

4 period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in 

5 the production of cattle, and who produced more than 50 per 

6 centum of the volume of cattle produced by the producers 

7 voting in the referendum, 

8 (c) The termination or suspension of any order, or any 

9 provision thereof, shall not be considered an order within the 

10 meaning of this Act. 

11 PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO AMENDMENTS 

12 Sec. 11. The provisions of this Act applicable to orders 

13 shall be applicable to amendments to orders. 

14 PRODUCER REFUND 

15 Sec. 12. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 

16 Act, any producer against whose cattle any assessment is 

17 made and collected from him under authority of this Act 

18 and who is not in favor of supporting the programs as 

19 provided for herein shall have the right to demand and 

20 receive from the Beef Board a refund of such assessment: 

21 Provided, That such demand shall be made in accordance 

22 with regulations on a form and within a time period pre- 

23 scribed by the Board and approved by the Secretary but in 

24 no event more than sixty days after the end of the month 

25 in which the sale or slaughter of said cattle occurred and 



68 



17 

1 upon submission of proof satisfactory to the Board that the 

2 producer paid the assessment for which refund is sought, 

3 and any such refund shall be made within sixty days after 

4 demand is received therefor: Provided, however, That no 

5 producer shall claim or receive a refund of any portion of an 

6 assessment which he collected from other producers. 

7 , PETITION AND BEVIEW 

8 Sec. 13. (a) Any person subject to any order may file 

9 a written petition with the Secretary, stating that any such 

10 order or any provision of such order or any obligation 

11 imposed in connection therewith is not in accordance with 

12 law and praying for a modification thereof or to be exempted 

13 therefrom. He shall thereupon be given an opportunity for a 

14 hearing upon such petition, in accordance with regulations 

15 made by the Secretary. After such hearing, the Secretary 

16 shall make a ruling upon the prayer of such petition which 

17 shall be final, if in accordance with law. 

18 (d) The district courts of the United States in any dis- 

19 trict in which such person is an inhabitant, or has his priu- 

20 cipal place of business, are hereby vested with jurisdiction to 

21 review such ruling, provided a complaint for that purpose 

22 is filed ^vithin twenty days from the date of the entry of such 

23 ruling. Service of process in such proceedings may be had 

24 upon the Secretary by delivering to him a copy of the com- 

25 plaint. If the court determines that such ruling is not in 



69 



18 

1 accordance with la wy it shall remand such proceedings to 

2 the Secretary with directions either (1) to "make such ruling 

3 as the court shall determine to be in accordance with the 

4 law, or (2) to take such further proceedings as, in its 
£ opinion,' the law requires. The pendency of proceedings in- 

6 stituted pursuant to Subsection (£) of this section shall not 

7 impede, hinder,' or delay the United States or the Secretary 

8 from obtaining relief pursuant to section 14(a) of this Act. 

9 '.'•'■•'■■•• . ENFORCEMENT 

10 Sec. 14. (a) The several district courts of the United 

11 States are vested with jurisdiction specifically to enforce, 

12 and to prevent and restrain any person from violating any 

13 order or regulation 'nia'de or issued pursuant to this Act. Any 

14 civil action authorized to be brought under this Act shall be 

15 referred to the Attorney General for appropriate action: 

16 Provided, That nothing in this Act -shall be construed as 

17 requiring the Secretary to Vefer 'to the Attorney General 

18 minor violations of this xVct whenever he believes that the 

19 administration and enforcement of the program would be 

20 adequately served by suitable Written notice or warning to 

21 any person committing such violation. 

22 (b) Any person who violates any provision of any 

23 order issued by the Secretary under this Act, or who fails 

24 o«r refuses to collect Or Teinit any assessment duly required 

25 of him thereunder, shall be liable to a penalty of not less 



70 



19 

1 than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 for each such violation 

2 which shall accrue to the United States and may be recov- 

3 ered in a civil suit 'brought by the United States: Provided, 

4 That subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be in addi- 

5 tion to, and not exclusive of, the remedies provided now or 

6 hereafter existing* tat law or in equity. 

7 CERTIFICATION OF ORGANIZxiTlONS 

$ Sec. 15. The eligibility of any organization to represent 

9 producers of any designated geographic larea of the United 

10 States to request the issuance of an order under section 5, 

11 and 'to participate in the making of nominations under sec- 

12 tion 8(b) shall be certified by the Secretary. Certification 

13 shall be based, in addition to other available information, 

14 upon a factual report submitted by the organization which 

15 shall contain information deemed relevant and specified by 

16 the Secretary for the making of such determination, includ- 

17 ing, but not limited to, the following: 

18 (a) geographic territory covered by the organiza- 

19 ition's active membership, 

20 (b) nature and size of fthe organization's active 

21 membership, proportion of total of such active member- 

22 ship accounted for by producers of cattle, and the volume 

23 of cattle produced by the organization's active member- 

24 ship in each such State, 

25 (c) the extent to which the cattle producer mem- 



71 



20 

1 .bership of such organization is represented in setting the 

2 organization's policies, 

3 (d) evidence of stability and permanency of the 

4 organization, 

5 (e) sources from which the organization's opera t- 

6 ing funds are derived, 

7 (f) functions of the organization, and 

8 (g) the organization's ability and willingness to 

9 further the aims and objectives of this Act : 

10 Provided, however, That the primary consideration in dcter- 

11 mining the eligibility of an organization shall be whether its 

12 producer membership consists of a substantial number of 

13 producers who produce a substantial volume of cattle sub- 

14 ject to the provisions of this Act. The Secretary shall certify 

15 any organization which he finds to be eligible under this 

16 section and his determination as to eligibility shall be final. 

17 Where more than one organization is certified in any geo- 

18 graphic area, such organizations may caucus to determine 

19 the area's nominations under section 8(b). 

20 STATE BEEF BOABDS 

21 Sec. 16. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 

22 preempt or interfere with the workings of any beef board, 

23 beef council, or other beef promotion entity organized and 

24 operating within and by authority of any of the several 

25 States. 



72 



21 

1 REGULATIONS 

2 Sec. 17. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations 

3 with the force and effect of law as may be necessaiy 

4 to carry out the provisions of this Act and the powers 

5 vested in him by this Act. 

6 investigations: power to subpena and take oattis 

7 and affirmations i aid of courts 

8 Sec. 18. The Secretary may make such investigation as 

9 he deems necessary for the effective carrying out of his 

10 responsibilities under this Act or to determine whether a 

11 producer or slaughterer of cattle or any other person has en- 

12 gaged or is about to engage in any acts or practice which 

13 constitute or will constitute a violation of any provisions of 

14 this Act, or of any order, or rule or regulation issued under 

15 this Act. For the purpose of such investigation, the Secretary 

16 is empowered to administer oaths and affirmations, subpena 

17 witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and re- 

18 quire the production of any books, papers, and documents 

19 which arc relevant to the inquiry. Such attendance of wit- 

20 ncsses and the production of any such records may be 

21 required from any place in the United States. In case of 

22 contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpena to, any person, 

23 including a producer, the Secretary may invoke the aid of 

24 any court of the United States within the jurisdiction of 

25 which such investigation or proceeding is carried on, or where 



73 



22 

1 such person resides or carries on business, in requiring the 

2 attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production 

3 of books, papers, and documents; and such court may issue 

4 an order requiring such person to appear before the Secre- 

5 tarv, there to produce records, if so ordered, or to give 

6 testimony touching the matter under investigation. Any 

7 failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by 

8 such court as a contempt thereof. All process in any such case 

9 may be served in the judicial district whereof such person is 

10 an inhabitant or wherever he may be found. 

11 SEPARABILITY 

12 Sec. 19. If any provision of, this Act or the application 

13 thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the 

14 validity of the remainder of the Act and of the application 

15 of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not 

16 be affected thereby. 

17 AUTHORIZATION 

18 Sec. 20. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated 

19 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated 

20 such funds as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this 

21 Act. The funds so appropriated shall not be available for 

22 payment of the expenses or expenditures of the Beef Board 

23 in administering any provisions of any order issued pursuant 

24 to the terms of this Act. 

25 EFFECTIVE DATE 

2^ f>FA\ 21. This Act shall take effect upon enactment. 



BEEF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ACT 



THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Committee ox Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10:30 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. W. R. Poage (vice chairman 
of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
Tennessee, Melcher, Bergland, Brown, Nolan, Weaver, Baldus, Krebs, 
Harkin, Hightower, English, D'Amours, Sebelius, Findley, Symms, 
Johnson, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn. 

Staff present: Robert M. Bor, counsel; John E. Hogan, associate 
counsel; Glenda Temple and Mary Jarratt, staff assistants; L. T. 
Easley, press assistant. 

Mr. Poage. The committee will come to order. 

The Committee on Agriculture is meeting this morning for final 
consideration of H.R. 7656, a bill to enable cattle producers to estab- 
lish, finance, and carry out a coordinated program of research, pro- 
ducer and consumer information, and promotion to improve, main- 
tain, and develop markets for cattle, beef, and beef products. 

We are here to consider this program of research for cattle im- 
provement. The program has been discussed. I know that we have 
some who might want to consider offering some amendments. 

Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Poage. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a Findley amend- 
ment to offer. 

Mr. Melcher. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Poage. Mr. Melcher. 

Mr. Melcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment. 

Mr. Poage. I want to move this as rapidly as possible because the 
House is meeting at 11 o'clock. 

Mr. Melcher. I have an amendment to section 9. The clerk has a 
copy of that amendment. 

Would you please pass it out? 

Mr. Poage. Where is it ? 

Mr. Melcher. It is section 9. It deals with how the referendum is 
run, and with cattle producer approval. 

As it now stands in the bill, in section 9, the bill says i.f a majority of 
those who voted were in favor of the referendum and owned two-thirds 
of the cattle, then it would carry. 

This would be a weighted proposition. 

(75) 



76 

Again, we have not identified how many people are eligible to vote, 
or provided any safeguards on eligibility. 

The amendment that I am offering here is known as a Farm Bureau 
amendment. Quite often 1 disagree with the Farm Bureau. 

I have votes on record that are absolutely contrary to the Farm 
Bureau position. However, in this instance I think that they are 
correct. 

What they are seeking to do is something worthwhile. Perhaps my 
office has rearranged this a little or polished oft' a point or two and 
modified it, but what is sought in this amendment that I am offering 
is to make a more democratic process and a more responsible process 
out of this referendum. 

In the amendment you have before you, we have underlined the 
sentences and words which we would add. That which is struck 
through are the words and sentences which would be eliminated. 

I will first direct my attention to the underlined sentence which is 
the key one. I will read it. "The Secretary shall establish a procedure 
whereby all known cattle producers are notified of the referendum/' 

We know that this is difficult. It is very difficult to find everyone 
who owns cattle: whether it be a milk cow or a -i-H calf or something 
like that. 

We know it is difficult. But we are sure that the Secretary can 
establish some kind of procedure whereby the producers are notified. 

Those producers are to be notified of the time and place of balloting 
and that there is going to be a balloting, first of all. The producers 
would register with the ASCS in person or by mail to vote in that 
referendum, creating an opportunity to check the voter list. 

Then we require of those who have registered .for it to be a good 
and valid referendum that at least 50 percent of those registered have 
to vote. 

Otherwise you would not have found out by a fair sample what the 
producers think about this subject. 

I want to strike out the present provision that where a majority of 
the producers voting in such referendum owning two-thirds of the 
cattle, the referendum shall pass. 

I like big feedlots, and I think that they are extremely important. 
They are vital in our livestock industry. But I do not think it would 
be fair for one company with 150.000 head to have a vote which would 
be overwhelming in the referendum. That would place too much 
emphasis merely on large cattle numbers. It does not comply with our 
usual democratic procedures. 

Mr. Kelly. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Melcher. Yes. 

Mr. Poage. I do not want to cut you off, but I believe that you have 
had 5 minutes. 

Mr. Melcher. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. Poage. This can go on and on. If we do prolong this then I can 
assure you that this will kill consideration of this bill this morning. 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Poage. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Melcher a 
question. 



77 

Mr. Melcher, I certainly recognize the important improvement that 
your amendment makes in the bill. Would there not, however, be some 
merit in another proposition ? 

If we are doing something for the farmers and the ranchers, if we 
really want to help them and not because we want to big brother them, 
but rather because this is something that they need, then would it not 
make more sense to make this provide for votes to be cast by 50 percent 
of the qualified producers 3 

I say this because if people do not have enough interest to vote or 
to act as though they are interested in the program, then we are doing 
them a favor that they really are not very interested in having done. 

If we identified the qualified producers, then we should have 50 
percent of them voting in favor, or two-thirds of them voting in favor 
as opposed to those who merely go and register. 

You will get activists registering as opposed to meat producers. 
We are interested in meat producers. We should not try to impose our 
judgment on them. 

Although we may be knowledgeable in agriculture, they are the real 
experts. They are the people who have to fight the battles. 

They are the ones who have to do this. If the program is for them 
and it is a good one, then they ought to be the ones who indicate that 
they want it, and have enough courage to vote for it. 

Mr. Melcher. Will the gentleman yield ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. Melcher. That is exactly what we are trying to do. We are 
trying to establish a system of registering voters that, in effect, makes 
them qualified. 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. Melcher. The second part of my amendment states that in 
order for it to be a valid referendum, then at least 50 percent of those 
registered as producers must have voted in the referendum. 

Mr. Kelly. Right, but what I am suggesting is that it might be 
more realistic to make it 50 percent of the qualified producers, rather 
than the registered producers as such. 

I say this because if all of the qualified producers are notified and 
they do not have enough interest in the program to even register, then 
you see what I mean. 

Mr. Melcher. Will the gentleman yield ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. Melcher. Xow, I see your point. You are stating that there may 
be some who are qualified producers, but who do not bother to register. 

Mr. Kelly. Right. 

Mr. Melcher. You would make it even tougher than I would. 

This amendment does not make it that tough. 

This merely says that if they are interested to register then they do 
become the qualified voters. At least half of them would have to vote 
to make it a valid referendum. 

Mr. Kelly. If they do not register, then they are not qualified to vote. 
but they are still the people whom we are trying to help. 

They are still the meat producers. They still know how to run their 
farms. 



78 

Mr. Melcher. I understand the gentleman's point, and I do not 
argue the point. 

I am trying to make this a bill which is modified enough to assure 
a real representation of cattle producer's sentiment. It does not go quite 
as far as your desire. I am going just part of the way on that. 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, is an amendment to the amendment in 
order? 

Mr. Poage. Yes; an amendment to the amendment is in order at this 
time. 

Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, at this time would like to 
amend the amendment of Mr. Meleher by striking the word "regis- 
tered" and inserting the word "qualified." 

That would be in reference to line 15 and line 16. 

Mr. Krebs. Will the gentleman yield ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. Krebs. Thank you. 

It appears to me that it would be difficult for us to vote on this 
amendment to the amendment at the present time without a definition 
of the word "qualified" or "qualifying". 

Mr. Kelly. It is my intention that the word qualified would have ap- 
peared previously in the amendment. 

It says here that the Secretary shall establish a procedure whereby 
all known cattle producers are notified of the referendum, and the time 
and place of balloting and qualified producers may register. 

It would be the use of that same term. If that term needs a definition 
where I have inserted it, then it would also need definition elsewhere. 

Mr. Krebs. I agree. 

I do, however, think that we should have some definition for the 
word "qualified." 

It may mean something to you but it may mean something else to me. 

Mr. Kelly. The logic of that appeals to me, although it did not 
occur to me. 

Mr. Poage. The Chair is going to ask if it would be agreeable that 
we spend only 2 minutes discussing these amendments, rather than 5. 

We only have 15 minutes left. 

If we did not get through this in that time, then a great deal of 
time would be lost. We would not like to have that. Nor would we like 
to have this discussion go beyond what is reasonable. 

If we do not get through this then that would have exactly the same 
effect as just killing it without any vote. 

We are here talking about democracy and we ought to have democ- 
racy. We really ought to be able to get to a vote on it. 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement to make and 
then I would be glad to yield. 

Mr. Poage. Judge Kelly, you have already had 6 minutes for your 
short statements. 

Under any rules, you have had more than 5 minutes to this time. 

Mr. Kelly. If I have had more than my share, Mr. Chairman, then 
I certainly would say that I have had more than my share. I apologize. 

Mr. Poage. I recognize Mr. Sebelius. 

Mr. Sebelius. I would like to oppose this amendment. Mr. Findley 
has a very simple amendment to offer. 

It sounds like this is going to cost millions and millions of dollars. 



79 

We have a very simple way for them to come in and qualify and 
certify what they produce. 

After they have done this then the referendum would be simple. 
All that is necessary is for this to be done by mail. 

It is all so simple. 

Now, if you want to kill the bill, then just go out and play around 
and tack on expenses. I know that somebody is going to have to pick 
up the tab. 

Farm Bureau has not only a magazine, but also a national magazine, 
a newspaper, bulletins, newsletters, and they can notify people very 
fully and easily. 

The Farm Bureau and NFO are fine organizations, but if they want 
to include every 4- H member in that manner, then we will find the 
whole system messed up. 

We are trying to do something very important and very proper. 
We are trying to help out this list of 75 people who are interested in 
beef and want to do something about the way research is being 
handled. 

I guess my 2 minutes are up. 

Mr. Poage. Mr. Jones of Tennessee. 

Mr. Joxes of Tennessee. I would like to associate myself with the 
thoughts of the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Sebelius. 

If you look at this program, you find that in all of our previous 
programs there is a checkoff system. I am opposed to this amendment. 

!Mr. Poage. Will the gentleman yield ? 

Mr. Joxes of Tennessee. Yes. 

Mr. Poage. I thank the gentleman. 

The other day I was talking with a gentleman who told me that 
there were 20,000 people eligible to vote in a bond election and they 
had only 70. 

Now in a bond election, if they vote the bond, then everybody had 
to pay the tax. 

Nobody has got to pay this checkoff unless they want to. All they 
have to do is to object to it. and then they will get their money back. 

You can make taxes or tax bonds for people all over the United 
States without regard to how many or what percentage of the people 
actually do vote on those. 

If there is no further discussion, then we will have a vote. 

All those in favor of this Kelly amendment to the amendment by 
Mr. Melcher say aye. 

Those opposed, say no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the no votes have it. 

All those in favor of the Melcher amendment say aye. 

Those opposed, say no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

Mr. Jotixsox. I call for a show of hands.. 

Mr. Poage. A show of hands is asked for at this time. 

All those in favor of the Melcher amendment, please hold up your 
hand. 

The Clerk. There are 11. 

Mr. Phage. Now those opposed, please raise your hand. 

The Clerk. There are 7. 

Mr. Poage. So there are 11 aye votes and 7 no votes. 

The amendment carries. 



80 

Mr. Sebelius. I would call for a rollcall vote, but I am afraid I 
would get beaten worse than that. 

Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Chairman, 1 have an amendment* 

Mr. Poage. Please go ahead. 

Mr. de la Garza. On page 11, Mr. Chairman, at line 15, the bill 
provides that the boards submit their budgets to the Secretary. 

It would be for his approval. 

I would like to add "and to the Agriculture Committees of the 
House and Senate." 

This means that there would be no further burden except to make 
two more copies. 

Mr. Poage. I think everyone here is familiar with the de la Garza 
amendment requiring people who might not be governmental agencies 
to report to this committee. 

Is there any discussion? 

If not, then we can vote. 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Poage. Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to speak in opposition to that amendment. 

Mr. Poage. All right, you are recognized. 

Mr. Kelly. The concept behind the amendment is sound I think, 
however, that the observation or an observation of the hearing before 
this comm^tee pretty clearly indicates that whatever is indicated 
here will get relatively short shrift. 

For us to pile on more administrative duties of every agency and 
board connected with agriculture which comes under the purview 
of this committee is just not going to be practical down the road. 

What we are going to do is to have more staff. 

We are not going to have time to take care of the staff because we 
seem to be handling everything that comes before us in a very 
summary fashion. 

I oppose the amendment for that reason. 

Mr. Poage. Are there any further comments? Is there any further 
discussion of the amendment? 

If not, all those in favor of the de la Garza amendment, please 
signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

The aye votes have it. 

The de la Garza amendment is adopted. 

Are there any further amendments? 

TNo response.] 

Mr. Poage. If not. then we can move on. 

Mr. de la Garza. T move that the bill be reported with the recom- 
mendation that it do pass. 

Mr. Poage. Mr. de la Garza moves that the bill be reported with 
the recommendation that it do pass. 

All those in favor of reporting the bill with the recommendation 
thnt it pass, say aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

The committee reports the bill with the recommendation that it 
do pass. 



81 

I believe that Mr. Foley, the chairman, is tied up on the telephone 
with the Secretary of Agriculture. 

I would like to ask the staff if there is anything else that has to 
come before the committee this morning for our attention? 

Mr. Bor. No, sir, this is the only bill that has been scheduled at 
this time. 

Mr. Poage. All right, since there is no further business, then we 
will move on. 

Are there any motions to adjourn? 

Mr. de la Garza. I move that we adjourn. 

Mr. Poage. We have a motion to adjourn. 

The committee will stand adjourned, subject to the call of the 
Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 11 a.m. the committee adjourned.] 



BEEF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ACT 



THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Committee ox Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1301, Long- 
worth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, Vigorito, Jones of Tennessee, 
Melcher, Mathis, Bergland, Breckinridge, Richmond, Nolan, Krebs, 
Hightower, English, Fithian, Wampler, Sebelius, Findley, Thone, 
Johnson, Madigan, Jeil'ords, Moore. 

Staff present: Robert M. Bor and Hyde H. Murray, counsels; John 
E. Hogan, associate counsel; Glenda Temple and Mary Jarratt, staff 
assistants. 

The Chairman. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order. 

The committee meets today for consideration of the motion to recon- 
sider the votes by which H.R. 7656 was reported by the committee. 

The Chair notes that the rules provide that a person who voted on 
the prevailing side must offer such a motion on the same day or on 
the next day that a similar type of business is in order. 

The Chair had indicated in advance that this matter would be taken 
up today, since other matters had been scheduled until now. 

In fairness to members, I wanted to be sure that this motion would 
not come as a surprise. 

The Chair intends to seize this opportunity to make a parenthetical 
statement. It would appear to me that it is the committee's responsi- 
bility to deal with nil relevant issues involved in a particular piece 
of legislation before that bill is sent to the floor. In that way, we will 
be in a position to at least advise our colleagues as to how we reacted 
to various proposals. 

It does not seem to me that this bill could or would come up before 
the August recess. 

So, this does not constitute a delay, in my judgment. 

I recognize the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Melcher. 

Mr. Melcher. Mr. Chairman, out of courtesy to one or more mem- 
bers of the committee who have a strong feeling about this bill, I move 
to reconsider the vote on H.R. 7656 and that the bill be opened for 
amendment, again. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Montana moves that the bill. 
H.R. 7656, be reconsidered. 

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. 

Mr. Moore. I ask for a recorded vote. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Louisiana asks for a recorded 
vote. 

(83) 



84 

All those in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Montana to 
reconsider the bill will, when their names are called, answer aye. Those 
opposed, nay. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

(The rolleall vote follows ; | 

Ayes : Representatives Vigorito, Meleher, Bergland, Richmond, Nolan, Krebs, 
Fithian, YVampler, Sebelius, Findley, Jeffords, and Foley. 

Nays: Representatives Poage, Jones of North Carolina (by proxy), Jones of 
Tennessee, Math-is, Breckinridge, Hightower, English, Jenrette (by proxy), 
Thone, Johnson, Madigan, Moore, Kelly (by proxy), Baldus, and Hagedorn 
(by proxy). 

The Chairman. The clerk will report the result of the rolleall. 

The Clerk. There are 12 ayes and 15 nays. 

The Chairman. Since there are 12 ayes and 15 nays, the motion is 
not agreed to. 

Reconsideration is not ordered. 

Is there any other business to come before the committee? 

Mr. Breckinridge. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Breckinridge. 

Mr. Breckinridge. I arrived at the morning meeting just prior to 
adjournment and immediately after the rolleall on the food stamp 
legislation. 

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to be recorded as voting 
aye. 

The Chairman. Is there any objection since this will not change the 
outcome of the vote ? 

[Xo response.] 

Having heard no response, it is so ordered. 

I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Richmond. 

Mr. Richmond. I thank the gentleman from Montana for his motion 
to reconsider. 

I will have to serve notice reluctantly on the committee that we will 
have to take this matter to the floor. 

Unfortunately, it will result in a long and possibly unpleasant 
harangue. 

I really think that this matter should have been settled in committee, 
so we could keep all our problems in this room. 

Mr. Vigorito. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Richmond. Yes. 

Mr. Vigorito. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I would like to say that regardless of the motion, the likelihood is 
that it will pass. 

The Chairman. I recognize the gentleman from California. 

Mr. Krebs. I apologize for interrupting the rolleall. 

I want to say that my vote was a matter of courtesy and not on the 
merits of this. 

The Chairman. If there is no other business to come before the 
committee, then we will stand adjourned and meet tomorrow morning. 

[Xo response.] 

The Chairman. Having heard no response, this committee is now 
adjourned and will meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock for a con- 
tinuation of the hearings on sugar. 

[Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2 :45 p.m.] 



WOOL ACT PAYMENTS 



THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10 :20 a.m.. pursuant to notice, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chair- 
man) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Melcher, Bergland, Brown, 
Bowen, Rose, Breckinridge, Richmond, Nolan, Baldus, Krebs, Harkin, 
Hightower, Bedell, McHugh, Fithian, Jenrette, Thornton, Wampler, 
Sebelius, Findley, Madigan, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn. and Moore. 

Staff present : Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert M. Bor, coun- 
sel ; John E. Hogan, associate counsel ; .John M. Lindley and 
Nick Ashmore, staff assistants; Gene Moos, staff analyst; L. T. Easley, 
press assistant; Glenda Temple, staff assistant; Weldon Barton and 
Leon Geyer, staff consultants, Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing 
and Consumer Affairs; James Culver and George Dunsmore, staff 
consultants, Subcommittee on Dairy and Poultry; Alan Gray, staff 
consultant. Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains; Gerry Jorgensen, 
staff consultant, Subcommittee on Department Operations, Investiga- 
tions and Oversight. 

The Chairman. The Chair would like to bring up the bill, S. 532, 
authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to amend retroactively 
USDA regulations pertaining to the computation of price-support 
payments under the National Wool Act of 1954 in order to insure 
the equitable treatment of ranchers and farmers. 

The Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains unanimously reported 
this bill to the full committee on May 3, 107G. with the recommenda- 
tion that it be passed. This action came at the conclusion of the sub- 
committee hearing. 

Without objection, this bill will be considered as being before the 
committee, printed in the record, and open for amendment at any 
point. 

[The bill, S. 532, follows :] 

(85) 



86 



94m congress 

1st Session 



S.532 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

February 3, 1975 

Mr. Haskell (for Kmisclf, Mr. Hansen-. Mr. Gary AV. Hart, and Mr. McGef.) 
introduced rhc following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry 



A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to amend retroactively 
regulations of the Department of Agriculture pertaining to 
tlic computation of price support payments under the Na- 
tional Wool Act of 1SK34 in order to insure the equitable 
treatment of ranchers and farmers. 

1 Be it enacted b/j the Senate and House, of Representor 

2 I tees of the United Stales of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to amend 

4 retroactively regulations of the Department of Agriculture 

5 pertaining to the computation of price support payments 

6 under the National Wool Act of 1954 in order that the 

7 amount of such payments may, in the case of any rancher 

8 or farmer, he computed on the basis of (1) the net sales 

II 



87 

2 

1 proceeds received, or (2) in the case of any rancher or 

2 farmer who failed to realize the amount provided for in the 

3 sales document, the lesser of the following: (A) the net 

4 sales proceeds based on the price the rancher or farmer 

5 would have received had there hcen no default of payment 

6 under such document, or (B) the fair market value of the 

7 commodity concerned at the time of sale. 

8 Sec. 2. The Secretary of Agriculture is further author- 
ed ized to reconsider any application filed for the payment of 

10 price support under the National Wool Act of 1954 with 

11 respect to any commodity marketed during the four market- 

12 mg years 1969 through 1972 and to make such payment 

13 adjustments as he determines fair and cquitahle on the basis 

14 of any amendment to regulations made under authority of 

15 the first section of this Act. 



88 

The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the chairman of the Sub- 
committee on Livestock and Grains, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Poage. 

Mr. Poage. Mr. Chairman, this bill relates only to about $0 wool 
producers in the State of Colorado. Some of them are over the line 
m I'tah and New Mexico, but basically they are in the State of 
Colorado. 

In the wool marketing years L969k72, they sold their wool to a 
cooperative that they thought was perfectly sound. They were paid 
a partial payment for their wool. The cooperative went bankrupt and 
they never received the balance of their payments. 

The Department has held — and I think correctly, in view of the 
law — that they could not receive the wool payments that are provided 
for under the law because the promissory notes that they had received 
are not to be considered — in the past they have not been considered — 
to constitute payment within the meaning of the wool payment 
program. 

Therefore, they had not sold their wool, according to the technical 
interpretation, and you do not get the wool payment until you have 
sold your wool. 

They were considered not to have sold their wool; therefore, they 
were not eligible. Actually, they got only a small fraction of the value 
of their wool from the co-op. They were not paid for their wool and 
they could not get the Government payments. 

This bill simply allows them to get the Government payments and 
it will be computed on the basis, first, of the net sales proceeds received 
or, in the case of any rancher or farmer who failed to realize the 
amount provided for in the sales document, the lesser of the following. 

It will really be one of these two. One. the net proceeds based on 
the price the rancher or farmer would have received had there been 
no default in the payment under the document : or. two, the fair market 
value of commodity concerned at the time of the sale. 

He gets his Government payment based on the lesser of those. In 
other words, if he made an especially advantageous sale of what he 
had. he gets no advantage for that. He would only get payment on the 
basis of a fair market value of the commoditv at the time of the sale. 

The Department of Agriculture recommends passage of the bill : 

The Department recommends prompt passage of this bill and would like to 
recommend to the chairman of the committee prompt consideration. 

They have approved it. Of course, the parties involved have all ap- 
proved it. We do not have the exact amount of what this will cost, 
but it is a matter of less than $150,000 that would be required to pay 
these people. 

We think it is a matter of equity that they should be paid. They 
would have been paid had the cooperative paid them what it owed 
them. 

They are being denied the Government payment because some- 
body else did not pay them, which aggravates this situation. 

Mr. Brown. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Poage. Yes. 

Mr. Browx. Thank you. 

I am very pleased to see that the Congress, if it enacts this, is in a 
position to do equity to the small producers in this area and I am very 
happy to support it. 



89 

I am, however, reminded of the fact that in a similar case involv- 
ing equity with regard to a disease in my own State we were not able 
to act so promptly. 

Mr. Findley. Mr. Chairman ? 
The Chairman. Mr. Findley ? 

Mr. Findley. I have long regarded the Wool Act as one of the most 
useless farm programs we have. I do not see how there is any public 
benefit in it at all. I am sure, however, that this bill is not going to have 
any effect upon the lifetime of the Wool Act. 

I hope one of these days the committee will take it up for review. 
I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas to explain the bank- 
ruptcy event. Will the payments here go to the creditors under the 
bankruptcy ? 

Mr. Poage. No. They will go to the wool producers. They are not 
going to the concern that owes the money at all. 
Mr. Findley. What went bankrupt \ 

Mr. Poage. The producers are entitled to the payments. Not at any 
time, under this bill or under general law, would anybody be except 
the producer and he is only entitled to those payments under general 
law after he has sold his wool. 

Mr. Findley. Does this bill correct the basic law to take care of 
similar incidents should they occur in the future ? 

Mr. Poage. No, sir, it does not. It only relates to these 50 producers. 
Mr. Findley. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there any further discussion of the bill? 
[No response.] 

The Chairman. Are there any amendments to the bill? 
[No response.] 

Mr. Poage. I move we report the bill with a recommendation that it 
be passed. 

The Chairman. If there are no further amendments, the gentleman 
from Texas moves that we report the bill, S. 532, with a recommenda- 
tion to the House that it do pass. 

All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. 
[Chorus of ayes.] 

The Chairman. Those opposed will answer no. 
[No response.] 

The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. The 
clerk will report that a quorum is present. 
The gentleman from California. 

Mr. Brown of California. Is it possible to get this bill sent back \ 
The Chairman. The Chair intends to ask for consent or suspension 
consideration of this bill since there appears to be no evident opposi- 
tion to it and the chair is not aware of any further amendments to be 
offered. 

Mr. Brown. Is the cotton bill not in the same category \ 
The Chairman. The cotton bill may or may not be in the same cate- 
gory. I am reluctant to ask for suspension consideration on the cotton 
bill. In the event that there is any opposition on the floor, I think it 
would be preferable to have a rule and to have a majority vote 
required. 

[The committee proceeded to other business.] 



AFRICAN HONEYBEE CONTROL 



THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10:20 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Melcher, Bergland, Brown, 
Bowen, Rose, Breckinridge, Richmond, Nolan, Baldus, Krebs, Harkin. 
Hightower. Bedell, McHugh, Fithian, Jenrette, Thornton, Wampler, 
Sebelius, Findley, Madigan, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn, and Moore. 

Staff present : Fowler C West, staff director ; Robert M. Bor, coun- 
sel; John E. Hogan, associate counsel; John M. Lindley and Nick 
Ashmore, staff assistants; Gene Moos, staff analyst; L. T. Easley, 
press assistant; Glenda Temple, staff assistant; Weldon Barton and 
Leon Geyer, staff consultants, Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing 
and Consumer Affairs; James Culver and George Dunsmore, staff 
consultants. Subcommittee on Dairy and Poultry; Alan Gray, staff 
consultant. Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains: Gerry Jorgensen, 
staff consultant, Subcommittee on Department Operations, Investiga- 
tions and Oversight. 

The Chairman. The Chair would like to present to the committee 
H.R. 5242, to prevent the introduction and spread of diseases and 
parasites harmful to hon rybees. 

This bill and the bill S. 18 have been before the full committee for 
hearing. Without objection, the Chair would like to ask unanimous 
consent that both bills may be placed before the committee for con- 
sideration at this time. 

[The bills, H.R. 5242 and S. 18, and the report from the U.S. De- 
partment of Agriculture follow :] 

(91) 



92 



94th CONGRESS 
1st Session 



H. R. 5242 



IN TITE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

March 20,1075 

Mr. Foley (for himself, Mr. "Wamh.ki:. and Mr. Bergland) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 



A BILL 

To amend the Act of August 31, 1922, to prevent the intro- 
duction and spread of diseases and parasites harmful to 
honeybees, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted bjl the Senate and House of Represcnta- 

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That section 1 of the Act of August 31, 1922, as amended 

4 (42 Stat. 833; 76 Stat. 169; 7 U.S.C. 281), is amended 

5 to read as follows: 

6 " (a) In order to prevent the introduction and spread 

7 of diseases and parasites harmful to honeybees, and the intro- 

8 duction of genetically undesirable germ plasm of honeybees, 

9 the importation into the United States of all honeybees is 

I 



93 

2 

1 prohibited, except that honeybees may be imported into the 

2 United States — 

3 " (1) by the United States Department of Agricul- 

4 ture for experimental or scientific purposes, or 

5 "(2) from countries determined by the Secretary 

6 of Agriculture — 

7 " (A) to be free of diseases or parasites harm- 

8 ful to honeybees, and undesirable species or sub- 

9 species of honeybees ; and 

10 " (B) to have in operation precautions a de- 
ll quate to prevent the importation of honeybees from 

12 other countries where harmful diseases or parasites, 

13 or undesirable species or subspecies, of honeybees 

14 exist. 

15 " (b) Honeybee semen may be imported into the United 

16 States only from countries determined by the Secretary to 

17 be free of undesirable species or subspecies of honeybees, and 

18 which have in operation precautions adequate to prevent 

19 the importation of such undesirable honeybees and their 

20 semen. 

21 "(c) Honeybees and honey! >ee semen imported pursu- 

22 ant to subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be 

23 imported under such rules and regulations as the Secreiarv 

24 of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Treasury shall 

25 prescribe. 

77-139 O - 77 - 7 



94 



1 "(d) Kxcepl with respecl to honeybees and honeybee 

2 semen Imported pursuant to subsections (a) and (h) of 

3 this section, nil honeybees or honeybee semen offered for 

4 import or intercepted entering the United States shall be 

5 destroyed or immediately exported. 

6 "(e) As used in this Act, the term 'honeybee' means 

7 all life stages and the germ plasm of honeybees of the genus 

8 Apis, except honeybee somen.". 

9 Sec. 2. Section 2 of the Act of August 31, 1922 (42 

10 Stat, 834; 7 U.S.C. 282), is amended to read as followV: 

11 "Sec. 2. Any person who violates any provision of see- 

12 tion 1 of this Act or any regulation issued under it is guilty 

13 of an offense against the United Slates and shall, upon con- 

14 viction. he fined not more than $1,000. or imprisoned for 

15 not more than one year, or both.". 

16 Sec. 3. The Act of August 31, 1922. is further amended 

17 by adding the following new sections : 

18 "Sec. 3. The Secretary of Agriculture is aulhorized to 

19 cooperate with the Governments of Canada. Mexico, Guate- 

20 mala, Belize, Honduras. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa "Rica. 

21 Panama, and Colombia, or the local authorities thereof, in 

22 carrying out necessary research, surveys, and control opera- 

23 tions in those countries in connection with the eradication, 

24 suppression, control, and prevention or retardation of the 

25 spread of undesirable species and subspecies of honeybees, 



95 



4 

1 including but not limited to Apis mellifera adansonii, com- 

2 monly known as the African or Brazilian honeybee. In per- 

3 forming the operations or measures authorized in this Act, 

4 the governments of such countries shall be responsible for 

5 the authority necessary to carry out such operations or 

6 measures on all lands and properties therein and for such 

7 other facilities and means as in the discretion of the Sec- 

8 retary of Agriculture are necessary. The measure and char- 

9 acter of cooperation carried out under this Act on the part 

10 of the United States and on the part of the governments of 

11 such countries, including the expenditure or use of funds 

12 appropriated pursuant to this Act, shall be such as may be 

13 prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Arrangements 

14 for the cooperation authorized by this Act shall be made 

15 through and in consultation with the Secretary of State. 

16 "Sec. 4. Funds appropriated to carry out the provisions 

17 of this Act may also be used for printing and binding without 

18 regard to section 501 of title 44, United States Code, for 

19 employment, by contract or otherwise, of civilian nationals 

20 of Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salva- 

21 dor, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia for serv- 

22 ices abroad, and for the construction and operation of research 



96 



1 laboratories, quarantine stations, and other buildings and 

2 facilities. 

3 "Sec. 5. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated 

4 such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions 

5 of this Act.". 



97 




DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON. D C 20250 



Honorable Thomas S. Foley Auguo, 8. 192fl 

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture 
House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This is in reply to your request for a report on H.R. 5242, a bill "To 
amend the Act of August 31, 1922, to prevent the introduction and spread 
of diseases and parasites harmful to honeybees, and for other purposes." 

This Department recommends that the bill be enacted, if amended as 
suggested in the attachment to this report. 

The bill would strengthen the existing Honeybee Act (7 U.S.C. 281, 282) 
by prohibiting the importation of honeybees in all stages, from germ 
plasm (except honeybee semen) to adult, except by the USDA for experimental 
or scientific purposes; or from countries determined by the Secretary to 
be free of diseases or parasites harmful to honeybees and undesirable 
species or subspecies of honeybees, and which have adequate precautions 
in operation to prevent importation of honeybees from other countries 
where harmful diseases or parasites, or undesirable species or subspecies, 
of honeybees exist. The bill would allow the importation of honeybee 
semen only from countries which are determined to be free of undesirable 
species or subspecies of honeybees and which have adequate precautions 
in operation to prevent the importation of such undesirable honeybees 
and their semen. The present Act only prohibits importation of the 
adult stage. 

The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Treasury would be 
authorized to regulate the importation of honeybees and honeybee semen 
pursuant to the Act. 

If amended as we suggest, the bill would also authorize the Secretary to 
cooperate with State or local governments, organizations, individuals, 
and the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the Central American countries 
to eradicate, control, and prevent the spread of undesirable species and 
subspecies of honeybees, including pure or hybrid forms of Apis mellifera 
adansonil , the African bee. 

The African honeybee was deliberately imported into Brazil from Africa 
for research purposes in 1956. Shortly thereafter, queen bees were 
accidentally liberated and this honeybee strain, known to be highly 
aggressive and irritable, began spreading throughout South America at 
the rate of about 200 miles per year. 



US 



Honorable Thomas S. Foley 



The strain has mixed with other breeds of honeybees in South America, 
and has imparted its extremely aggressive traits to the local bee popula- 
tion. These hybrids forage so aggressively that other strains kept by 
commercial beekeepers cannot compete in areas where the Africanized 
genes have appeared. These hybrids are often extremely vicious and 
difficult to handle. Accidental encounters with livestock and people 
have resulted in mass stlngings that sometimes cause death. 

If this hybridization should spread to the United States and contaminate 
our domestic strains, the present practice of maintaining apiaries in 
rural areas, often near human habitation, would not be tolerated by the 
public. This would seriously interfere with the use of bees for crop 
pollination and would cripple some of our most important fruit, vege- 
table, and seed industries. The bill would enable the Secretary to 
cooperate with other countries to establish physical, chemical, behavioral, 
or other barriers to the overland movement of the Africanized bee into 
the southwestern United States. 

Presently, eggs, larvae, pupae, and semen of the honeybee Apis mellifera 
and all other species of bees in the genus Apis can be Imported into the 
United States without restriction. Thus, Immature forms of the African 
honeybee could legally be introduced from Africa or South America either 
deliberately or in shipments containing other bee strains. 



While research has now demonstrated that the parasitic mite, Acarapis 
wood i , could also be introduced In brood, of much greater importance is 

to exclude mites of the genus Varroa and of the genus Tropilaelaps . 



the need 

These parasites of the immature forms are not found in the United States 

now but are serious pests of the genus Apis in Asia and the Orient, 



No additional appropriations would be needed for administration of the 
bill's import control provisions. Estimates for implementing section 3 
of the bill must be developed as the problem with undesirable bees 
becomes better defined in the Central American countries, or, if amended 
as we suggest, when such bees begin to appear in the United States. 

In accordance with the requirements of section 102 (2) (C) of Public Law 
91-190, a statement of this bill's effect upon the environment is attached. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection 
to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administra- 
tion's program. 



Sincerely 




Phil Campbell 
Jnrifir Swnretary 



99 



The new section 3 of the Act of August 31, 1922, to be added by section 
3 of the bill is amended to read as follows: 

'"Sec. 3. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture either independently 
or in cooperation with States or political subdivisions thereof, 
farmers' associations, and similar organizations and individuals, 
is authorized to carry out operations or measures in the United 
States to eradicate, suppress, control, and to prevent or retard 
the spread of undesirable species and subspecies of honeybees. 

1 (b) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with 
the Governments of Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El 
Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia, or the local 
authorities thereof, in carrying out necessary research, surveys, 
and control operations in those countries in connection with the 
eradication, suppression, control, and prevention or retardation of 
the spread of undesirable species and subspecies of honeybees, 
including but not limited to Apis mellifera adansonii, commonly 
known as the African or Brazilian honeybee. The measure and 
character of cooperation carried out under this subsection on the 
part of such countries, including the expenditure or use of funds 
appropriated pursuant to this Act, shall be such as may be pre- 
scribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Arrangements for the 
cooperation authorized by this subsection shall be made through and 
in consultation with the Secretary of State. 

' (c) In performing the operations or measures authorized in this 
Act, the cooperating foreign country, State, or local agency shall 
be responsible for the authority to carry out such operations or 
measures on all lands and properties within the foreign country or 
State, other than those owned or controlled by the Federal Government 
of the United States and for such other facilities and means as in 
the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture are necessary." 

This amendment is needed to give the Secretary authority to 
act swiftly and effectively to eradicate or suppress the 
Africanized bee or any other undesirable species of honeybees 
within the United States, in the event that they are accidentally 
or intentionally introduced into the United States. 



100 



94th CONGRESS 
1st Session 



S.18 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

January 15, 1975 

Mr. Dole (for himself, Mr. Case, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Fong, Mr. McGee, Mr. 
Taft, and Mr. Williams) introduced the following bill; which was read 
twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry 



A BILL 

To amend the Act of August 31, 1922, to prevent the intro- 
duction and spread of diseases and parasites harmful to 
honeybees, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That section 1 of the Act of August 31, 1922, as amended 

4 (42 Stat. 833;. 76 Stat. 169; 7 U.S.C. 281), is amended 

5 to read as follows: 

6 " (a) In order to prevent the introduction and spread 

7 of diseases and parasites harmful to honeybees, and the intro- 

8 duction of genetically undesirable germ plasm of honeybees, 

9 the importation into the United States of all honeybees is 

II 



101 



1 prohibited, except thai honeybees may be imported into the 

2 United States — 

3 " ( 1 ) by the United States Department of Agricul- 

4 ture for experimental or scientific purposes, or 

5 "(2) from countries determined by the Secretary 
Cy of Agriculture — 

7 " (A) to be free of diseases or parasites harm- 

8 ful to honeybees, and undesirable species or sub- 

9 species of honeybees; and 

10 " (B) to have in operation precautions ade- 

11 quate to prevent the importation of honeybees from 

12 other countries where harmful diseases or parasites, 

13 or undesirable species or subspecies, of honeybees 
H exist. 

15 Honeybees imported pursuant to paragraph (2) of this sub- 

16 section shall be imported under such rules and regulations as 

17 the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Treas- 

18 ury shall prescribe. 

19 "(b) Except with respect to honeybees imported pur- 

20 suant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of this 

21 section, all honeybees offered for import or intercepted enter- 

22 ing the United States shall be destroyed or immediately 

23 exported. 

2-i " (c) xVs used in this Act, the term 'honeybee' means 



102 

3 

1 all life stages and the germ plasm of honeybees of the genus 

2 Apis.". 

3 Sec 2. Section 2 of the Act of August 31, 1922 (42 

4 Stat. 834; 7 U.S.C. 282), is amended to read as follows: 

5 "Sec. 2. Any person who violates any provision of sec- 

6 tion 1 of this Act or any regulation issued under it is guilty 

7 of an offense against the United States and shall, upon con- 

8 viction, be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not 

9 more than one year, or both.". 

10 Sec. 3. The Act of August 31, 1922, is further amended 

11 by adding the following new sections : 

12 "Sec. 3. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 

13 cooperate with the Governments of Canada, Mexico, Guate- 

14 mala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, 

15 Panama, and Colombia, or the local authorities thereof, in 

16 carrying out necessary research, surveys, and control opera- 

17 tions in those countries in connection with the eradication, 

18 suppression, control, and prevention or retardation of the 

19 spread of undesirable species and subspecies of honeybees, 

20 including but not limited to Apis mellifera adansonii, com- 

21 monly known as the African or Brazilian honeybee. In per- 

22 forming the operations or measures authorized in this Act, 

23 the governments of such countries shall be responsible for 

24 the authority necessary to carry out such operations or 

25 measures on all lands and properties therein and for such 



103 

4 

1 other facilities and means as in the discretion of the Sec- 

2 retary of Agriculture are necessary. The measure and char- 

3 acter of cooperation carried out under this Act on the part 

4 of the United States and on the part of the governments of 

5 such countries, including the expenditure or use of funds 

6 appropriated pursuant to this Act, shall he such as may be 

7 prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Arrangements 

8 for the cooperation authorized by this Act shall be made 

9 through and in consultation with the Secretary of State. 

10 "Sec. 4. Funds appropriated to carry out the provisions 

11 of this Act may also be used for printing and binding without 

12 regard to section 501 of title 44, United States Code, for 

13 employment, by contract or otherwise, of civilian nationals 
14= of Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salva- 

15 dor, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia for serv- 

16 ices abroad, and for the construction and operation of research 

17 laboratories, quarantine stations, and other buildings and 

18 facilities. 

19 "Sec. 5. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated 

20 such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions 

21 of this Act.". 



104 

Mr. Bergland. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important proposition. 
Beekeeping is an important part of the agricultural economy of any 
country. 

There is a creature released, by accident, in South America called 
the African bee. also known as the killer bee. This will do to the bee 
business what the fire ant is doing to the southeast. So far it has been 
moving north at the rate of about 200 miles a year. 

It escaped from laboratories in Brazil and is currently confined to 
Central and South America. This bill would authorize the Secretary 
of Agriculture to enter into appropriate agreements to prevent its 
migration into the United States where it could crossbreed with tame 
bees destroying the industry. This authority would also control the 
importation of certain parasites that have been proven destructive to 
the bee industry in parts of Asia. 

The administration supports the proposition. There are no moneys 
involved. It merely extends to the Secretary certain authorities for 
alternative action. 

Mr. Chairman, the administration has proposed an amendment 
which is attached to the bill. I recommend this authority and would, 
therefore. Mr. Chairman, offer the amendment to the bill, H.R. 5242, 
that is described in the attachment to the letter dated August 8, 1975, 
addressed to Chairman Foley and signed bv then Under Secretary J. 
Phil Campbell. 

Mr. Jones of Xorth Carolina. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Bergland. I will yield, sir. 

Mr. Jones. Not being too familiar with honeybees, how do you ob- 
tain honeybee serum ? 

Mr. Bergland. I am sorry, I do not know. Mr. Melcher of Montana 
would perhaps be the best qualified to answer that. 

Mr. Jones. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Does the gentleman from Xorth Carolina want to 
pursue this matter any farther? 

Mr. Bergland. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering is 
described in a letter. It would simply add a section 3 to the bill. 

The Chairman. We will ask counsel to briefly explain the amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Bor. Mr. Chairman, the bill as it is now worded without the 
proposed amendment authorizes cooperative programs with certain 
countries, principally the Central American countries, Colombia, and 
the Government of Canada. 

The proposed amendment would go farther than that and authorize 
the Secretary not only to carry out programs in cooperation with the 
governments of those countries but also to carry out programs in co- 
operation with States or political subdivisions, farmer associations, 
and similar organizations, in this countrv for the purpose of suppress- 
ing and eradicating the spread of the killer bees. 

Essentially what it does is to authorize programs to be carried out 
domestically in the United States, as well as programs in cooperation 
with foreign countries. 

The Chairman. The irentleman from Minnesota moves the adoption 
of the amendment to the bill H.R. 5242. Is there any further discussion 
of the amendment? 

The gentleman from Iowa? 



105 

Mr. Bedell. Did I understand the staff to say that this gives them 
authority to work with other organizations in other countries? I do 
not read it that way. 

Mr. Bor. Xo; I did not say in other countries; only in this country. 

The Chairman. If there is no further discussion, all those in favor 
of the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Bergland, 
will signify by saying aye. 

[Choruse of ayes.] 

The Chairman. Those opposed? 

[Xo response.] 

The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

Are there other amendments to the bill ? 

[Xo response.] 

The Chairman. If not, is there further discussion? 

[Xo response.] 

Mr. Bergland. Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be reported with 
the recommendation that it be passed. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Minnesota moves that the bill, 
H.R. 5242, as amended, be reported with a recommendation that it do 
pass. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

The Chairman. Opposed ? 

[Xo response.] 

The Chairman. The clerk will report that a quorum is present. 

Mr. Bor. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes, Mr. Bor. 

Mr. Bor. I understand that the Senate bill was passed and referred 
to this committee. Would it be the intention for us to report the bill 
with the House number or report the bill with the Senate number? 

The Chairman. The Chair is not sure whether, if we have suspen- 
sion consideration, we can substitute the language of the House 
amended bill under the Senate number. 

Mr. Wampler. Mr. Chairman, could we substitute the language of 
the House bill to the Senate ? 

The Chairman. Yes; I think it might be more expeditious to 
strike everything after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and to 
substitute therefor the language of the House bill, as amended. 

Mr. Wampler. Mr. Chairman, I so move. 

Mr. Bor. Mr. Chairman, if it turns out that the Senate bill is 
identical with what the committee has just done, then would it be 
appropriate 

The Chairman. The counsel informs me that the Senate bill is 
identical to the House bill. 

Mr. Bor. Xo; if it turns out that that be the case, would it be appro- 
priate to report the Senate bill without striking the 

The Chairman. We have just adopted an amendment by Mr. Berg- 
land to H.R. 5242 and reported that bill. 

Xow, if we want to actually report the Senate bill, which is also 
before the committee, in its place, we would have to strike everything 
after the enacting clause of the bill S. 18 and substitute the language 
of the House amended bill, unless they are identical. 

Mr. Bor. The Senate bill does contain the amendment that Mr. 
Bergland has proposed. 



106 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Minnesota asks unanimous 
consent to substitute the bill S. 18 for the bill H.R. 5242 and to recom- 
mend (hat the bill S. is be reported to the House with a recommen- 
dation that it do pass. Is there any objection? 

[ No response.] 

The Chairman. Hearing none, it is so ordered. We will report the 
Senate bill accordingly. 

Counsel, is there any need for unanimous consent for clerical or 
technical changes; or is counsel satisfied? 

Mr. Bor. It mi<rht be wise to do so. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the staff will be authorized to 
make the necessary clerical and technical changes. 

[The committee then proceeded to other business.] 



EMERGENCY FOOD STAMP VENDOR ACCOUNTABILITY 

ACT OF 1976 



THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Committee ox Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:30 a.m., in room 1301. 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present : Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Melcher, Bergland, Bowen. Rose, 
Breckinridge, Richmond, Nolan, Weaver, Baldus, Krebs, Harkin, 
Hightower, Bedell, McHugh, English, Fithian, Thornton, Wampler, 
Sebelius, Findley, Thone, Symms, Johnson, Madigan, Grassley, and 
Hagedorn. 

Staff present: Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert M. Bor and 
Hyde H. Murray, counsels; John E. Hogan, associate counsel; John 
R. Kramer, special counsel ; food programs specialist ; John M. Lind- 
ley, Sharon Armann, Ann Cole, Mary Jarratt, Wendel Primus, David 
Wright, and Howard Yourman, staff assistants; Weldon Barton and 
Leon Geyer, staff consultants, Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing 
and Consumer Affairs; James Culver, staff consultant, Subcommittee 
on Dairy and Poultry; Gerald Jorgensen, staff consultant, Subcom- 
mittee on Department Operations, Investigations and Oversight. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

The committee meets for further consideration of the food stamp 
legislation. 

Mr. Krebs. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from California makes a point of 
order that a quorum is not present. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

(The rollcall follows:) 

Present: Representatives de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of North Carolina. 
Berglnnd, Rose, Nolan, Weaver, Baldus, Krebs, Hightower. MeHugh. Fithian. 
Wampler, Findley, Thone, Symms, Johnson, Madigan, Foley, Poage, Bedell. 
Grassley, Hagedorn, Jones of Tennessee, Breckinridge, and Richmond. 

The Chairman. The clerk will report the results of the rollcall. 

The Clerk. Twenty-six members were present when their names 
were called. 

The Chairman. There being 26 members present when their names 
were called, a quorum is present. 

(107) 



108 

Mr. Bergland. Mr. Chairman, I am one of several who is very 
uneasy about the lack of any progress on this food stamp Legislation. 

We have attempted to meet, I think, 10 times and have had quorums 
3 or 4 times. 

I intend to serve notice that as soon as members start to abandon 
this committee, when the 21sl member has failed, that is. has left. I 
will make a point o,f order that a quorum is not present. 

I think that we have to get this bill out of here. We can do it this 
month. We can do it in a few days if we stay hitched. 

I frankly am getting kind of tired of the way things are going. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The Chair wants to express appreciation to the 
members for their presence here this morning and hopes we can make 
some progress today. 

As the members were advised earlier, in addition to H.R. 13613, we 
have before us H.R. 13698, which is introduced by Mr. Jones of North 
Carolina for himself and several other members. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 13698 and an identical bill passed by the Senate, 
S. 2853, to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1964 to insure a proper 
level of accountability on the part of food stamp vendors. It is known 
as the "Emergency Food Stamp Vendor Accountability Act o.f 1976." 

[The bill S. 2853 follows:] 



10!) 



94th CONGRESS 
2d Session • • 



S. 2853 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

April 9, 1976 
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture 



AN ACT 

To amend the Eood Stamp Act of 1964 to insure a proper level 
of accountability on the part of food stamp vendors. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That this Act may be cited as the "Emergency Food Stamp 

4 Vendor Accountability Act of 1976". 

5 Sec. 2. Section 7 (d) of the Eood Stamp Act of 1964, 

6 as amended, is amended by inserting "(1)" immediately 

7 after " (d)", and adding at the end thereof new paragraphs 

8 (2) through (7) as follows: 

9 "(2) (A) The Secretary shall by regulation prescribe 

10 the manner in which funds derived from the distribution of 

11 coupons (charges made for coupon allotments) shall be 

I 



77-139 O - 77 



110 

2 

2 deposited by coupon vendors. The regulations shall contain 

2 provisions requiring that coupon vendors promptly deposit 

3 such funds in the manner prescribed by the Secretary: Pro- 

4 vided, That such regulations shall, at a minimum, require 

5 that such deposits be made weekly: Provided further, That 
q such regulations shall, at a minimum, require that upon the 
rj accumulation of a balance on hand of $1,000 or more, such 
g deposits be made within two banking da}'s following the 
g accumulation of such amount. 

^q "(B) Any "coupon vendor, or any officer, employee, or 

-q agent thereof, convicted of violating the regulations issued 

-j 2 under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be fined 

13 not more than $3,000, or imprisoned not more than one 

24 year, or both. 

25 " (3) (A) Coupon vendors receiving funds derived from 
-|(5 the distribution of coupons (charges made for coupon allot- 
27 men ts) shall be deemed to be receiving such funds as fidu- 
^g ciaries of the Federal Government, and such coupon vendors 
2Q shall immediately set aside all such fimds as funds of the 
20 Federal Government. Funds derived from the distribution of 
22 coupons (charges made for coupon allotments) shall not 

22 be used, prior to the deposit of such funds in the manner 

23 prescribed by the Secretary, for the benefit of any person, 

24 partnership, corporation, association, organization, or entity 

25 other than the Federal Government. 



Ill 



3 

1 " (B) Any coupon vendor, or any officer, employee, or 

2 agent thereof, convicted of violating subparagraph (A) of 

3 this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000, or a 

4 sum equal to the amount of funds involved in the violation, 

5 whichever is the greater, or imprisoned not more than ten 

6 years, or both: Provided, That if the amount of such funds 

7 ' is less than $1,000, such vendor shall be fined not more than 

8 $3,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 

9 " (4) (A) The Secretary shall by regulation require that 

10 upon the deposit, in the manner prescribed by the Secre- 

11 tary, of funds derived from the distribution of coupons 

12 (charges made for coupon allotments), coupon vendors shall 

13 immediately send a written notice to the State agency, 

14 accompanied by an appropriate voucher, confirming such 

15 deposit. In addition to such other information deemed by 

16 the Secretary to be appropriate, such regulations shall require 

17 that the notice contain — 

18" "(i) the name and address of the coupon vendor; 

19' " (ii) the total receipts of such coupon vendor 

20 derived from the distribution of coupons (charges made 

21 for coupon allotments) during the deposit period; 

22 "(in) the amount of the deposit; 

23 "(iv) the name and address of the depository; and 

24 " (v) an oath, or affirmation signed by the coupon 

25 vendor, or in the case of a corporation or other entity 



112 



4 

1 .'•• not a natural. person, by an appropriate official of the 

2 j coupon vendor, certifying that the information contained 
.3. - in such notice is true and correct to the best of such 

4 ' * person's knowledge and belief. 

5 ' " (B) Any coupon vendor, or any officer, employee, 

6 or agent thereof, convicted of failing to provide the notice 

7 required under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall 

8 be fined not more than $3,000, or imprisoned not more than 

9 one year, or both. 

10 "(Q) Any coupon vendor, or any officer, employee, or 

11 agent thereof, who knowingly provides false information 

12 in any notice required under subparagraph (A) of this para- 

13 graph shall be fined not more than §10,000, or imprisoned 

14 not more than ten years, of both. 

13 "(5) (A) The Secretary shall by regulation require 

16 each coupon vendor at intervals prescribed by the Secretary, 

17 but not less often than monthty, to send to the Secretary, or 

18 his designee, a written report of the vendor's operations 

19 during such period under the food stamp program. In addi- 

20 tion to such other information deemed by the Secretary 'to 

21 be appropriate, the regulations shall require that the report 

22 contain — r . . , . 

23 • "(i) the name and address of the coupon vendor; 

24 " (ii) the total receipts of the coupon vendor derived 



113 



1 from the distribution of coupons (charges made for cou- 

2 pon allotments) during the report period; 

3 " (iii) the total amount of deposits made by the 

4 vendor of funds derived from the distribution of coupons 

5 (charges made for coupon allotments) during such 

6 period ; 

7 " (iv) the name and address of each depository re- 

8 ceiving such funds from such vendor; and 

9 " (v) an oath, or affirmation, signed by the coupon 

10 vendor, or in the case of a corporation or other entity 

11 not a natural person, by an appropriate official of the 

12 coupon vendor, certifying that the information contained 

13 in the report is true and correct to the best of such per- 

14 son's knowledge and belief. 

15 "(B) An}' coupon vendor, or any officer, employee, or 

16 agent thereof, convicted of failing to provide any notice re- 

17 quired under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be 

18 fined not more than §3,000, or imprisoned not more than one 

19 year, or both. 

20 "(C) Any coupon vendor, or any officer, employee, or 

21 agent thereof, who knowingly provides false information in 

22 any notice required under subparagraph (A) of this para- 

23 graph shall be fined not more than Si 0,000, or imprisoned 

24 not more than ten years, or both. 



114 

6 

1 "(6) The Secretary may by regulation require State 

2 agencies to provide periodic reports to the Secretary, or his 

3 designee, containing a consolidation of the respective coupon 

4 vendor's notices to such State agencies at such intervals as 

5 the Secretary in his discretion deems appropriate. 

6 "(7) The Secretary and the United States Postal Serv- 

7 ice shall jointly arrange for the prompt deposit of funds col- 

8 lected by the Postal Service on behalf of a State from charges 

9 made for coupon allotments." . 

10 Sec. 3. Section 6 of the Pood Stamp Act of 1964, as 

11 amended, is amended by redesignating subsections (b) and 

12 (c) as subsections (d) and (e) , respectively, and inserting 

13 new subsections (b) and (c) as follows: 

14 "(b) (1) The Secretary shall by regulation develop an 

15 appropriate procedure for determining and monitoring the 

16 level of coupon inventories in the hands of coupon vendors 

17 for the purpose of insuring that such inventories are at proper 

18 levels (taking into consideration the historical and projected 

19 volume of coupon distribution by such vendors) . Any such 

20 regulations shall contain procedures to insure that coupon in- 

21 ventories in the hands of coupon vendors are not in excess 

22 of the reasonable needs of such vendors taking into considera- 
2^ tion the ease and feasibility of rcsupprying such coupon in- 
24 Yentories. The Secretary may, at his discretion, require pe- 



115 

7 

1 riodic reports from such coupon vendors respecting the level 

2 of such inventories. 

3 " (2) Any coupon vendor, or any officer, cnrployee, or 

4 agent thereof, convicted of failing to provide a report re- 

5 quired under paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be fined 

6 not more than §3,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, 

7 or both. 

8 "(3) Any coupon vendor, or any officer, employee, or 

9 agent thereof, who knowingly provides false information in 

10 any report required under paragraph ( 1 ) of this subsection 

11 shall be fined not more than §10,000, or imprisoned not 

12 more than ten years, or both. 

13 "(c) (1) The Secretary shall by regulation prescribe 

14 appropriate procedures for the delivery of coupons to coupon 

15 vendors and for the custod}', care, control, and storage of 

16 coupons in the hands of coupon vendors in order to secure 
such coupons against theft, embezzlement, misuse, loss, or 

18 destruction. 

19 "(2) Any coupon vendor, or any officer, employee, or 

20 agent thereof, convicted of violating any regulations issued 

21 under paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be fined not 

22 more than $3,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, 

23 or both.". " : 

24 Sec. 4. Section 3 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, as 



Ill) 



8 

1 amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new 

2 subsection (o) as follows: 

3 " (o) The term 'coupon vendor' means any person, part- 

4 nership, corporation, organization, political subdivision, or 

5 other entity with which a State agency has contracted for, or 

6 to which it has delegated administrative responsibility in con- 

7 nection with, the issuance of coupons to households.". 

Passed the Senate April 8, 1976. 

Attest: FRANCIS R. VALEO, 

Secretary. 



117 

The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. 1 am reading from the Senate report 

(Calendar Xo. 714, Report Xo. 94-714), page 5 : 

As of February 19, 1070, the Department had completed case and coupon audits 
with respect to 108 of the remaining 200 vendors, including those wl. 
cash shortages were suspected. Of the audits thai have been completed, auditors 
found no irregularities in the books of 82 of the vendors. However, 12 vendors 
were unable to account for $5,G69,S40 between sales and deposits, and 14 were 
found to be slow in making deposits that totaled $6,831,428. Of these funds, 
$3,854,234 has now been deposited, according to the Department. 

In the next paragraph it says : 

The practice of food stamp vendors failing to timely deposit to the account of 
the Federal Government the money they collect on food stamp purchases and 
using the money interest free for long periods of time is evidence of the fad that 
the vendors are not made sufficiently accountable for their activities by the Food 
Stamp Act of 1964. 

In contrast with the specific penalties applying to food stamp recipients and 
grocers, the Act contains no penalties with respect to vendors who abuse the food 
stamp program. Therefore, under the existing Food Stamp Act, if a vendor fails 
to timely deposit money it collects on food stamp purchases, the Department's 
only recourse is to proceed against the State agency in whose jurisdiction the 
practice is occurring. 

Gentlemen, this bill provides certain penalties to the vendors who 
abuse the trust placed in them. It in no way affects the recipients or 
the grocers. 

The bill you have before you — the Senate bill or the House bill with 
the identical language — passed the Senate with a unanimous vote of 
71 to 0. 

At this point I would be delighted to respond to any questions that 
any member might have. 

Mr. Vigorito. Are not there laws on the statute books now which 
would take care of any fraud or misuse of funds? Is not this Federal 
property? Is not this duplicating what is already on the books? 

Mr. Joxes of North Carolina. I will read from the Senate report. 

Moreover, the existing Food Stamp Act does not state specifically that the 
funds received by vendors from the sale of coupons are Federal funds or provide 
specific penalties for a vendor's misuse of the funds. 

So, I would say that the answer to that question is "No." 

The Chairman. Are there other questions? 

Mr. Poage ? 

Mr. Poage. I was just going to suggest that this seems to be a field 
in which there is pretty general agreement that there has been 
unwarranted abuse of the program. 

It has nothing to do with the eligibility of any of the recipient- of 
food stamps. 

It has to do only with trying to see that the Government is not de- 
frauded by the vendors. 

I think there is almost unanimous agreement that we need this kind 
of action. 

The reason for moving this now is that we need to get something 
on the books now in order to stop, if we can. these abuses. 

We felt that if we waited and tried to put this into the general bill, 
that then it would result in an unnecessary and unreasonable delay 
of a reform that most everybody accepts as being needed and as being 
desirable. 



118 

For that reason I would vote that the committee might — at least 
by a very substantia] vote, although it might not be as convincing a 

vote as that cast by the Senate — approve this and move it along with- 
out any further delay. 

The Chairman. Mr. Weaver ? 

Mr. WEAVER. I would Like to ask Mr. Jones of North Carolina a 
question. 

Who are these vendors ? Do they make a profit? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. The vendors are those designated by 
State agencies as a clearinghouse for the food stamps. It could be 
banks. It could be individuals. But they would be approved by the 
State agency. 

Mr. Weaver. To distribute them or bring them back? 

Or both? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. I beg your pardon. 

Mr. Weaver. To distribute them or bring them back ? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. It is a clearinghouse, if you will. 

Mr. Weaver. Do banks do this ? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Yes, in some cases. 

Mr. Weaver. Do they charge for this service ? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Yes. 

Mr. Weaver. Will this decrease their burden and make the charge 
go up? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. It merely imposes penalties when they 
violate the regulations. 

Mr. Weaver. What are they allowed to charge ? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. I cannot answer that. 

The Chairman. Dors counsel have the current transaction charge? 

Mr. Springfield. Mr. Weaver, that varies according to individual 
States and the particular vendor. 

The charge is negotiated between the States and the vendors. 

Generally speaking at the moment, I think it probably ranges from 
75 cents per transaction or sale up to approximately $1.50 or maybe, 
in a few cases, higher than that. 

Mr. Weaver. Who pays for this ? 

Mr. Springfield. The State government pays for it. It is matched 
50-50 by Federal money. 

Mr. Weaver. I have been told in my district that the grocery stores 
are charged by the vendors ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Springfield. Perhaps what you have heard is a complaint that 
some banks on occasion have charged the grocers for redemption of 
the stamps. In other words, they would discount the stamps slightly 
when they are brought into the bank. 

That is a matter entirelv separate from this issue. 

This is a matter of either the bank or. as Mr. Jones indicated, some 
other business operation selling the stamps to the recipient. 

Mr. Weaver. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Any other questions or discussion ? 

Mr.Krebs? 

Mr. Krebs. I have a minor amendment. 

The Cttatrman. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. Krers. On page 3, lines 15 through 17, strike everything after 
"agency" through "deposit." and insert in lieu thereof the following: 



•■; 



119 

"including the appropriate local office thereof or counterpart local 
agency, and the voucher confirming such deposit shall be sent directly 

by the bank in which the deposit has been made to the same agencies 
and offices." 

Thus, instead of merely sending a notice of deposit of the funds to 
the State agency, it would also be necessary toi the local agency 
administering the program to be sent a copy oi that notice. 

Mr. Poage. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Krebs. Yes. 

Mr. Poage. Does this not impose a further obligation that will 
result in a considerable increase in expense? It is going to be a matter 
of getting out a letter. You cannot get out a letter for less than 25 
cents. 

It will add proportionately or substantially to the increase of the 
costs. 

In the next place, is it worthwhile to amend the Senate bill? It is 
worth something certainly if we can bring this in with the exact 
wording of the Senate bill. 

Unless we are achieving something rather substantial, it would seem 
to me that this would be a mistake for this committee to put on amend- 
ments unless they have some significance. 

I cannot see that this has significance. I find nothing wrong with 
it except an added cost and burden. 

Mr. Krebs. Mr. Poage, I thought you wanted me to yield for purpose 
of a question, not for the purpose of further comments. 

Mr. Poage. I ask you then, does this not involve too much cost? 

Mr. Krebs. I will be glad to answer that question. 

I do not see that sending a copy of a notice would involve any more 
than the postage stamp and the envelope into which to place the no- 
tice. We are talking about a letter. 

Mr. Poage. That is about 20 percent of the costs. 

Mr. Krebs. The postage, at least as of today, is 13 cents. 

All I am saying is this. The cost would be minor and the local entity 
which administers the program is entitled to be informed as to where 
the funds have been deposited. I have no objection to notifying the 
State, but I do think the local entity is entitled to this kind of notice. 

With reference to the point that you made about the amendment 
making a chancre in the Senate version, I certainly can understand 
your concern; but. by the same token, I think this is a minor correc- 
tion and I would be very surprised if the Senate conferees refused to 
adopt it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The Chairman. Mr. Jones of North Carolina ? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. I would certainly hope that the gentle- 
man from California will not insist on his amendment. 

This is a vital problem. It has received nationwide publicity. It puts 
a black mark, if von will, on the food stamp program. Here we have 
language which the Senate has already approved. If this committee 
will report it out. it can go through the House. Certainly. President 
Ford could not veto this bill under any circumstances. 

Mr. Findley. I want to join the gentleman in his suggestion to our 
friend from California in dealing with the 1-year extension. 



120 

If on close examination this does prove to be a desirable change, it 
could be incorporated in the bill now before us. 

Mr. de la Garza. I would like to oppose the amendment and state 
to the gentleman from California that the local office, that is, the one 
that certifies the eligibility has nothing to do with the stamps. 

In the State of Texas stamps are sold at the post office. The State 
welfare office handles the eligibility. It has nothing to do with the 
disbursing of the stamps. 

This tries to correct a deficiency in an entirely different area. 

In the gentleman's State of California, banks sell the stamps, com- 
pletely unrelated to the certification. In San Francisco and Los An- 
geles we visited those areas. Certification is completely separate from 
the selling of the stamps. There are two different transactions 
altogether. 

What this is trying to correct is the situation where a fellow is sell- 
ing the stamps and not putting the money in the bank. There have 
been several millions of dollars lost someplace. 

Whether you are notifying a certification agency or not is entirely 
immaterial. 

Mr. Kkebs. Will the gentleman from North Carolina yield? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
California. 

Mr. Kkebs. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I would like to advise the Committee and the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. de la Garza, that this amendment was specifically requested by the 
small community of Los Angeles County. So, apparently, Los Angeles 
County encountered problems. I would like to help Los Angeles Coun- 
ty, as well as other local entities which might be in a similar position. 

It may well be that in Texas this may not have an impact; but in 
my area it apparently does. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. de la Garza. Will counsel advise as to whether or not my state- 
ment is correct ? 

Mr. Wright. Mr. Krebs is in a unique position, as California is a 
State-supervised county-administered program. 

What that means, in effect, is this. The county welfare departments 
have an unusual degree of autonomy with respect to the State agen- 
cies. That is, they report to the county boards of supervisors more 
directly than they do to the State agency. 

Where it says "State" in the bill, actually it would read "counties" 
for all intents and purposes in California. 

Mr. de la Garza. But the stamps are sold by the banks in California. 

Mr. Wright. Some banks, private agencies, post offices: just like 
other States. 

But in response to Mr. Krebs' amendment, in the context of the dele- 
gation of authority in the State of California, the forms would be sent 
(o the counties as a normal operating procedure. 

Mr. Kelly. T would like to ask this. 

What Mr. Krebs is apparently hoping to accomplish with this 
amendment would come about automatically because the term "State" 
and "county'' would be interchangeable because the county is, in fact, 
a State agency? 

Mr. Wright. That is correct. That is why I am surprised about the 
comment about Los Angeles County. 






121 

Mr. Kelly. Your understanding then is that what Mr. Krebs is 
hoping to accomplish will conic about as a matter of course without 
the amendment? 

Mr. Wright. That is correct, if the program operates the way it did 
9 months ago. 

The Chairman. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina is 
about to expire. 

Mr. Joxes of North Carolina. I would request that the gentleman 
from California would withdraw his amendment in order that this leg- 
islation might be enacted to correct the evil that now exists. Then we 
can all go home and say that we did something to clean up the food 
stamp bill. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move the previous 
question. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Tennessee moves the previous 
question on the amendment. 

Is there any objection ? 

Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. 

All those in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Cali- 
fornia, Mr. Krebs, will signify by saying aye. 

Opposed ? 

The noes appear to have it. Those noes have it and the amendment is 
not agreed to. 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if there is no further 
discussion. I move that the bill be favorably reported to the House 
with the recommendation that it be passed. 

The Chairman. The gentleman moves that the bill, S. 2853. be re- 
ported to the House with the recommendation that it be passed. With- 
out objection, the previous question is ordered. 

All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye, those 
opposed, no. 

The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. 

The record will indicate that a quorum is present. 

Mr. Kelly. May the record show that that vote was unanimous? 

The Chairman. Yes, and the record will also show that the vote of 
the committee was unanimous. 

Mr. YTampler. Is it the Chairman's desire to put this on the sus- 
pension calendar? 

The Chairman. Yes. that would be my intention. 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. I think the suspension calendar is next 
Monday and Tuesday. 

The Chairman. I will communicate with the leadership to determine 
whether that is possible and if so. to have it placed on the calendar for 
Tuesday. 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Thank you. 

[The committee proceeded to other business.] 



COTTON RESEARCH AND PROMOTION ACT 
AMENDMENT 



WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1976 

House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Cotton 
of the Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met at 10:20 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 
1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. David R. Bowen 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present : Representatives Poage, Jones of Tennessee, Krebs, High- 
tower, Jenrette, Hagedorn, and Moore. 

Staff present: Robert M. Bor. counsel: John E. Hogan, associate 
counsel ; Weldon Barton, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Domestic 
Marketing and Consumer Relations; James Culver, staff consultant, 
Subcommittee on Dairy and Poultry: Leighton Lang, staff consult- 
ant. Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice; Glenda Temple, staff 
assistant. 

Mr. Bowen. The Subcommittee on Cotton will come to order. 

Last fall this subcommittee held extensive hearings on the subject of 
research and promotion in the cotton industry. 

We had extensive testimony throughout the cotton belt which 
brought to our attention the fact that increasing pressures of competi- 
tion from the synthetic industry as well as inflation and other factors 
have made it extremely difficult for the efforts now underway in the 
cotton industry in the field of research and promotion and advertis- 
ing to keep abreast of the times and the demands of the cotton indus- 
try and the producers of the Nation. 

Therefore, the overwhelming sentiment, as expressed in that testi- 
mony presented before us and before this subcommittee in December 
was that the Congress should pass enabling legislation to allow the 
producers of the Xation to make a decision for themselves as to 
whether or not they would like to provide additional financial sup- 
port through the checkoff payment for research and promotion in 
cotton. 

As a consequence, the Chair has introduced a bill which is before the 
Members, H.R. 10930 which would allow for that process to take 
place. 

This bill simply enables the Cotton Board and the Secretary, 
through legislation already established through the Cotton Pro- 
motion Act of 1966, to determine upon a rate to be submitted to the 
cotton producers of the Nation through a referendum and assess- 
ment in addition to that already determined and established by that 

(123) 



124 

statute so that they might have an opportunity to determine whether 
or not they would like to provide additional support in this area. 

This statute does nor attempt to tell the Cotton Board nor the Sec- 
retary precisely what the figure should be. In fact, the Language of the 

bill -ays that it simply places a ceiling and says that it cannot be any 
greater than 1 percent of the value of cotton as determined by the 
Cotton Hoard and the Secretary. 

Therefore, it is assumed that the figure to be submitted in the 
referendum could be either a flat figure or a percent or anything up to 
1 percent of the value of cotton as determined by the Cotton Board 
and the Secretary. 

So this subcommittee attempts neither to tell the Secretary or the 
Cotton Board what the specific figure should be to be submitted, nor 
does it attempt to tell the Cotton Board and the Secretary when the 
referendum should take place. 

That is not the responsibility of the Cotton Subcommittee. 

That is the responsibility of the Cotton Board and the Secretary as 
they view the industry and as they view the climate of opinion in the 
industry. That is their responsibility. 

Of course, this legislation does hold and preserve the preestablished 
SI per bale checkoff. It does not jeopardize that. 

More importantly, this legislation does end the practice of provid- 
ing public funds for the support of research and promotion in cotton 
and what is usually known as the 610 funds. 

This legislation passed in 1970 is terminated as of this act. The 
actual fact of the matter is that we, who support the cotton industry, 
do not intend to request in this year's appropriations legislation any 
further section 610 money. This bill spells an end to the expenditure 
of funds previously appropriated. Next year there is a slight date 
change which I will submit later in an amendment. 

That in brief is an outline of what this legislation attempts to do. 

I have a couple of short amendments which I would like to offer to 
the committee for its consideration. 

[The bill H.R. 10930 and the U.S. Department of Agriculture report 
follow :] 



125 



94th CONGRESS 
1st Session 



H. R. 10930 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

December 2, 1975 

Mr. Bowen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Agriculture 



A BILL 

To amend section 7(e) of the Cotton Research and Promotion 
Act to provide for an additional assessment and for reim- 
bursement of certain expenses incurred by the Secretary of 
Agriculture and to repeal section 610 of the Agricultural Act 
of 1970 pertaining to the use of Commodity Credit Corpora- 
tion funds for research and promotion. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. 

3 That section 7(e) of the Cotton Research and Promotion 

4 Act (7 U.S.C. 2106 (e) ) is amended as follows: 

5 (1) At the end of the first sentence strike the period 

6 and add the following: ", and for administrative costs in- 

7 curred by the Secretary for supervisory work involving 2.5 

I 



126 



1 employee years after an order or amendment to an order 

2 has been issued and made effective/'; 

(2) At the end of the second sentence strike the period 

4 and add the following: ", unless specifically authorized by 

5 provisions of this subsection.". 

(i (:')) At the end of the third sentence strike the period 

7 and add the following: "hut, subject to approval in a referen- 

s dimi as provided in section 8, the Secretary shall is<ue an 

<) amendment to the order which shall provide that in each 

10 marketing year, the rate shall he supplemented by an addi- 

11 tional per hale amount to he collected or paid as provided in 

12 this suhsection, such amount to he at a rate as prescribed in 

13 the amendment to the order, hut not to exceed one per centum 

14 of the value of cotton as determined hy the Cotton Board and 

15 tin 1 Secretary. Neither the amended order authorized by the 

16 foregoing provisions nor the disapproval of such order in a 

17 referendum shall operate to decrease or otherwise affect the 

18 amount of the assessment of si. 00 per hale in effect under 

19 the order published in the Federal Register on December 

20 31, 1966.". 

21 SEC. 2. Section 610 of the Agricultural Act of 1070, 

22 ;1 s amended (7 U.S.C. 2111)). is repealed effective July 1, 

23 1977. 



127 



Department of Agriculture, 

Office ok the Secretary, 
Washington, D.C., December 17, 1915. 
Hon. Thomas S. Foley, 
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, 
House of Representatives, Washington, B.C. 

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your request for a report on H.R. 
10930, a bill "To amend section 7(e) of the Cotton Research and Promotion Art 
to provide for an additional assessment and for reimbursement of certain ex- 
penses incurred by the Secretary of Agriculture and to repeal section 610 of the 
Agricultural Act of 1970 pertaining to the use of Commodity Credit Corporation 
funds for research and promotion." 

The Department has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 10930 if amended 
and clarified as set forth herein. 

Section 1(1) of the bill would provide for the reimbursement of administrative 
costs incurred by the Department for supervisory work involving 2.5 employee 
years after an order or amendment to an order has been issued and made effec- 
tive. We recommend that a provision be made for reimbursement of all adminis- 
trative costs incurred by the agency within the Department directly responsible 
for program administration — in this case the Agricultural Marketing Service. 
We further recommend that the Department be reimbursed for all costs asso- 
ciated with the holding of a producer referendum to approve additional assess- 
ments. The Department assumed all costs of developing the Order, holding public 
hearings, and holding the producer referendum in 1966. Any costs associated with 
other than the initial referendum of 1966 should be defrayed from program 
assessments. 

Section 1(2) contains language necessary to authorize the collection of an 
additional assessment on each bale over and above the present $1 per bale 
assessment. 

Section 1(3) of the bill provides for an additional producer assessment for 
research and promotion. This is a decision that must ultimately be reached in 
a referendum by cotton producers themselves if Congress approves this amend- 
ment. The language in this section is not clear as to whether the additional 
assessment is to be an amount per bale or a percentage of some value of cotton 
to be determined in some undefined means by the Cotton Board and the Secre- 
tary. Neither is it clear as to who would establish the rate of the additional 
assessment. 

The Committee may want to consider changing the language to specify an 
exact per bale amount of the additional assessment rather than providing that 
the amount be prescribed in an amendment to the Order. This would be con- 
sistent with the action taken by Congress when it set the initial $1 per bale in 
the Act. It would also facilitate and simplify the collection and remittance of 
assessments by handlers to the Cotton Board as well as eliminate the need for 
an annual determination of the value of cotton by the Cotton Board and the 
Secretary. 

In any event, we recommend that the language be revised to clarify the amount 
of the assessment and the basis on which it is to be established. 

Section 2 provides for the repeal of section 610 of the Agricultural Act of 
1970 effective July 1, 1977. Thus, authority for the use of section 610 funds 
would be continued for most of fiscal year 1977. Section 610 authorizes the use 
of Commodity Credit Corporation funds for cotton research activities. The De- 
partment agrees with the repeal of section 610 of the Agricultural Act of 1970. 
This would be consistent with the approach taken in other commodity research 
and promotion programs in that they are fully producer-financed. However, it 
should be noted that the repeal of section 610 would in no way affect our re- 
sponsibility for supervising the producer-financed program. The Department has 
well-defined oversight and surveillance responsibilities in the Cotton Research 
and Promotion Act. We assure the Congress that these activities will continue. 

Because of the ambiguity in the assessment provisions of the bill, we are unable 
to estimate the total amount of revenue to be generated by this proposal. 

With respect to the provisions of Public Law 91-190, Section 102(2) (C). we 
believe this legislation would have no significant impact on the quality of the 
environment. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the 
presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. 
Sincerely, 

Richard L. Fei.tner, 

Assistant Secretary. 



128 

Mr. Bowen. At tliis point I would like to open the meeting for any 

discussion of the general structure of the bill, and then the Chair 
will entertain amendments at a later point. 

If there are any questions in general at this point I will be glad to 
have them. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I would like for you to re- 
emphasize the fact that if the change in the present legislation is 
made, that is the $1 per bale checkoff, and if it is changed to ask for 
a percentage of checkoff rather than the $1 a bale, do we jeopardize 
the $1 a bale checkoff if this should happen ? 

Mr. Bowen. I thank the gentleman ior his question. 

I would direct his and the subcommittee's attention to line 15 on 
page 2 of the bill. I will read it. 

Neither the amended order authorized by the foregoing provisions nor the 
disapproval of such order in a referendum shall operate to decrease nor other- 
wise affect the amount of the assessment of $1 dollar per bale in effect under the 
order published in the Federal Register on December 31, 1966. 

In answer to the gentleman's question, the answer is that the $1 per 
bale is not affected. 

Any referendum to be submitted to the cotton producers of the 
Nation would deal exclusively with an additional assessment and not 
with the preexisting dollar per bale assessment. 

I would like to, of course, call the attention of the subcommittee to 
the fact that there are other provisions in the act of 1966 which are 
not dealt with in this bill. They are maintained; that is, of course, the 
individual producer can receive a refund if he is in any way un- 
happy with the matters. 

He can always get his money back and of course the established 
procedure for approving the referendum, which calls for two-thirds 
of the cotton producers or a majority of the individual producers and 
two-thirds of the production, is alread established in the Cotton Re- 
search and Promotion Act of 1966. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. I notice that when we had the hearings I 
testified in opposition to the increase ; that is, the change in the dollar 
a bale checkoff in the proposed amounts. At that time I said that the 
American Farm Bureau Federation had not taken a position on the 
bill. I see this morning that we have a letter addressed to you from 
John Datt of the bureau. 

In your opinion does this letter make it absolutely clear that the 
American Farm Bureau is 100 percent behind the bill? 

Mr. Bowen. That is my understanding. I have talked with Mr. Datt 
and others, and they assure me they strongly support the legislation. 
There is no equivocation in their position. They will support it on 
the floor and elsewhere. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. This is absolutely a turnaround from the 
position that they had before ? 

Mr. Bowen. I am not prepared to say to what extent their position 
is turned around. T can only say that they are strongly supportive of 
this legislation, and we are pleased to have it. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. All I can say is that we had the $1 a bale 
checkoff in the 1960's and they fought it all the way. 



129 

Mr. Bowen. We would be pleased to have the American Farm 
Bureau support on this. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. I hope they mean what they say here. 

Mr. Bowen. If I might then proceed, the Chair has an amendment 
which I would like to have distributed. It deals with the 2.5 employee 
years. 

This is a minor change. The Department in its letter, basically in 
support of this legislation, pointed out that there were some changes 
they would like to have. We have attempted to meet in part the request 
they have made. 

This is, therefore, an amendment that I would like to offer to the 
subcommittee which simply deletes the words involving 2.5 employee 
years. That is located on line 7 of page 1 and simply removes the ceil- 
ing upon the supervisory work and administrative costs to be per- 
formed by the Department. They felt they would like to have that 
open-ended so that whatever costs incurred by the Department in 
administering the program would be covered by the checkoff funds. 

We have acceded to that, and the Chair is offering therefore this 
amendment for consideration of the committee. The amendment reads 
as follows : 

"Page 1, beginning on line 7 and continuing through page 2, line 
1, strike the words 'involving 2.5 employee years'." 

Mr. Poage. Mr. Chairman, does that not open us to a good deal of 
criticism that we have avoided here before ? 

We have told people that there is to be no substantial increase in 
costs in the Department. 

I have always thought that it was probably silly to put this small 
amount in here anyhow, but the Department wanted it and we said it 
did not amount to anything. 

Does this not justopen it wide open so that they can spend any 
amount ? 

Mr. Bowen. I thank the gentleman for the comment. 

I would tell the chairman that the figure we have been able to get 
from the Department is that this is a modest amount and the issue 
that the Department is concerned more about is the point that we are 
not ready to accede on; that is the question of holding the referendum. 

This figure is in the amount of $50,000 to $60,000 at the most- 
Mr. Poage. I know that is what they indicate, but you have no as- 
surance that it will not run $5 million. 

Mr. Bowen. That's a possibility. 

I would say to the chairman that the other area, the area of hold- 
ing the referendum, is one that we do not accept. 

That is one in which the Department initially indicated that they 
might have a cost somewhere in the realm of $700,000 or $800,000. 
Then they reexamined it and decided it might be no more than 
$300,000. 

I feel that in this narrow area of the administrative cost after the 
referendum has been held and after the program is operative, that 
I feel this is merely one modest good faith gesture that we can make. 
hopefully working with the Department to see that it is administered 
soundly. 

I can understand the gentleman's reservations. 



130 

Mr. Poage. Ii Is not that I am particularly concerned about it. 
hut you arc going to find that the people hack home arc going to say 
"What did you do and how arc you going to spend the money?" 

You will double the amount of the assessment and now you are 
going to spend it. YYe are going to spend it and develop new uses. 
We arc going to spend it in the Department of Agriculture. 

The people will ask how much you are going to spend. This hill 
says you are going to spend very little, hut when we take off all of it 
they have no more confidence in what the CTSDA will do than I have. 

If we double the amount that the Department — this i> what they 
first asked for. This is what they told us that they needed. 

If we give them twice as much as they said they needed and if we 
give them 5 man-years, would that not he right generous with them? 
We would still have a ceiling on them where they couldn't go up to 
the $5 million I 

Suppose we change the 2 1 •» man-years to 5? 

Mr. Bowex. I suppose we are in a sad state if we are dealing with 
the Department o,f Agriculture which would take advantage of a 
provision of this sort to simply inflate cost and pad outlays in such 
a manner that it would directly exploit the cotton producers of the 
Xation. 

I would hope that we were not dealing with that kind of Depart- 
ment and therefore that is why I felt that removing that very limited 
ceiling would not he a problem. 

Of course, I guess we all agree that the isstie they are concerned 
about is the cost of the referendum. The chair is not prepared to accept 
their request. 

I would be very happy to entertain observations from other mem- 
bers of the subcommittee on this. 

I don't think we are talking about a lot of money. 

Mr. Poage. We are presumably not talking about a lot of money. 
All I am talking about is that let's make sure that we are not talking 
about a lot of money. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. Mr. Poage, you have been around here 
longer than the rest of us have. 

Do we have this in any other checkoff bill? 

Mr. Poage. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Bowex. In ofher words, you are saying that we do have ceilings 
in the other legislation? 

Mr. Poage. Xo. I say the Department pays the bill in other 
legislation. 

I do not know of any place where the farmers pay the bill. 

Mr. Bowex. Tf the gentleman will yield. I will ask the staff for the 
figure-. 

In the egg checkoff legislation, USDA is reimbursed for administra- 
tive costs incurred after an order has been promulgated. That would 
be tin 1 case here. 

In the case of potatoes section 32 funds are u-ed to cover USDA 
administrative expenses including the referendum. I think that would 
be in both c;i 

I think USDA bears administrative costs for wool, so there is a 
mixed bag there. 



131 

I believe what we are attempting to do is simply to try to find an 
equitable compromise by which the Department will accept the re- 
sponsibility of holding the referendum, win or lose, and then the actual 
cost of the administration of the program would be covered by the 

producer. 

I can see the point of view that might hold that the Department 
should cover it all. 

It is the Chair's feeling that since the program is designed to help 
the producer and since the producer is accepting the greater pari 
of the burden, that we might as well remove a major area of contro- 
versy and allow the cotton producers to cover the administrative costs. 

I also understand that the producers of the Nation do not object to 
this. The testimony is such that the cotton producers across the cotton 
belt do not object to covering the administrative costs. That is, they 
are not in favor of covering the cost of the referendum. 

But once the referendum is promulgated and the order is issued 
and final, then the cottongrowers of America do not object t<> covering 
administrative costs. 

Mr. Poage. I do not claim to speak for all the cpttongrowers in the 
United States. Xobody can. 

However. I do not think that the cottongrowers object to saying 
that we will pay the cost of 2U 2 man-year- to do this. I do not believe 
they would object to us saying we would pay the cost of 5 man-years. 

When you take off all limitations and just leave it up to the good 
judgment of the Department, then I know it sounds unreasonable but 
this is an election year. 

The more people that you can put on theoretically and the more 
people that the Department can put on during an election year, pre- 
sumably the greater benefits there are in giving them the jobs as 
opposed to having political influence. 

I do not like to be creating an unlimited source of jobs that the 
administration can give. 

I am willing to give them whatever they need to carry on this work. 
They said they needed 2y 2 man-years. 

If we give them twice as much as they said that they needed, I think 
we would be right generous. 

I am willing to give them twice what they asked for. I am willing 
to give them twice as much as they say they needed. I do not want to 
be stingy with them. 

But just to open the doors and to create patterns in an election year 
does not seem to me to be smart for anybody who is running for office, 
as all of us are. 

Mr. Krebs. First of all, I want to go on record as supporting the 
sentiment just expressed by the vice chairman. I, too, object to giving 
the Department a carte blanche, even though I personally am not 
concerned that the Department would use such authorization for pa- 
tronage purposes. 

I think it would be advisable to place some reasonable limit on the 
number of employees they can hire. 

All of us representing cotton-producing areas obviously are sym- 
pathetic to the concerns of our cotton producers. But, when we go t<> 
the floor, it is a cold world. 



132 

If we do not provide for some reimbursement of expenses to the 
Department and I have in mind not just expenses for administration 
but also for the referendum, a concept which may not he popular in 

this group— then we arc going to be asked a lot of questions on the 
floor. 

Why should the referendum not he paid for by the producers espe- 
cially since the beef checkoff bill, as I recall, has a reimbursement pro- 
vision^ Von mentioned that there are a number of pieces of legislation 
which have similar reimbursement provisions. 

Mr. BoWEN. The only one which does have a reimbursement for the 
referendum, which of course is not statute law, is the beef bill. All the 
others, it is a secretarial responsibility and paid by the Department. 

Mr. Krebs. I stand corrected. 

I thought you said the egg bill had a reimbursement provision. 

I certainly stand Corrected on my reference to other bills. 

If I correctly perceive the sentiment of the House in connection 
with this type of legislation, the feeling is that the industry really 
should pay its own way. 

I may be wrong though. You gentlemen have as good a conception 
of matters as I do. 

Mr. Bowex. At this point then, let me say as I mention this, I 
consider it a minor amendment and not a major one in character. 

The Chair has no reason to offer it other than simply to remove a 
minor objection on the part of the Department. The Chair would be 
very glad to consider a modification of this amendment, if, for ex- 
ample, the gentleman from Texas has a figure. 

Mr. Poage. Let's have the figure 5 instead of 2y 2 . 

Mr. Bowex. I would ask the staff whether or not there would be 
any problem with that. 

Certainly 5 should be more than adequate. 

Mr. Poage. It's twice more than they said they needed. 

Mr. Bowex. In that case I would be more than happy if I may 
have unanimous consent to amend my amendment which has been 
offered and to change the figure from 2.5 to 5. 

Mr. Bor. Mr. Chairman, would your amendment have the termi- 
nology "up to 5 man-yea is" rather than ''involving 5 man-years'' so 
that if the supervisory- work actually involves less than 5 man-years 
then it would be whatever figure would be appropriate? 

Mr. Bowex. The presumption is that this would be a ceiling, so I 
think the language should say "up to 5 man-years." It could say not 
more than or up to. 

Mr. Poage. Either way. 

Mr. MooPvE. Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman. 

I fully agree with the vice chairman that there ought to be a limi- 
tation. I agree with the gentleman from California that we are going 
to face some chill winds on this matter so if we can close a loophole, 
we would be better off. 

Does this language instruct the Department that the producers 
will pay up to 5 man-years? What language prevents the Depart- 
ment from spending any more than the 5 years if they choose to pay 
the difference? We still have that loophole which may be brought 
up by an enterprising soul on the floor. 

Mr. Hightower. I do not see a problem there because the Depart- 
ment tries to watch their budget. 



133 

If they are going to have t(, spend a little bit of their own money. 
they will have to know where the money comes from. Thej will have 
to account for it. 

I think we can make a mistake if we try to tie this thing down so 
tight that they would not have the necessary ability to respond to 
some unforeseen difficulty. 

Mr. Bowen. I might also say that the Department already has 
several years experience here in administering the program. They 
have already arrived at what the administrative costs are. so 1 don't 
think this is new territory for them. 

When they indicate that the figure is going to be in this area, I 
think that should be a pretty accurate reflection of the costs. 

Mr. Moore. I will yield to the wishes of the other members of the 
subcommittee on this matter. I hope, though, that we are in a posi- 
tion on the floor to be able to stand up and say that what we have 
done is going to see to it that USDA will not pay one penny of the 
taxpayers money to supervise the program. If we can say that, then 
I have no objections. 1 think that we had better be able to say it to 
avoid any conflicts on the floor. 

Mr. Poage. The only way that we can say it, as to what the De- 
partment themselves asked for, and they said they could do it with 
2!/2 man-years. 

We give them 5. 

Clearly, it looks like we give them twice as much as they said it 
would probably take. We are rather liberal in our estimates in pro- 
viding all they need. 

Mr. Moore. I agree with that. 

I am thinking about some of the folks we have faced before on 
farm legislation. 

Mr. Bowen. If the gentleman would yield further, bear in mind 
that this is a big step forward because this has not been covered in 
the past. 

We are taking away, that is, we are giving in effect a $6 million 
bonus to our colleagues, so to speak, that is, $6 million heretofore 
appropriated annually has not been requested; and the administra- 
tive costs which were covered by the Department are now being cov- 
ered by the producers. 

This seems like something of a substantial step forward. 

Mr. Moore. I fully agree with that, but I know a few of our col- 
leagues that take pride in jumping on cotton every time it comes to 
the floor. 

I am trying to take away every possible argument that may face us. 

I was thinking that if we add the words that it shall not exceed 
5 man-years that it might be better. 

The ihing would then be locked shut. 

If other members of the subcommittee feel like it is shut tightly 
now, then that is fine with me. 

Mr. Bowen. I appreciate the observation, and I share the concern. 
But I frankly believe that we feel it provides adequate coverage and 
that the Department has more than enough leeway to cover any admin- 
istrative costs by virtue of this language. 

That being the case, and with the unanimous consent for the change 
in the language, if I may offer the amendment as such to the subcom- 



134 

mittee, those in favor of the amendment as amended indicate by 
saying aye. 
Opposed \ 

It is adopted and agree&to. 

.Mr. IIoc.w. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question on the portion that 
Mi. Joins of Tennessee made reference to on pafi^ 2 of the amend- 
ment? I have not had a chance to talk to Mr. Bor about it, hut on 
line L5 where yon talk about the "amended order." did yon mean to 
say the "amendment to the order' authorized by the foregoing pro- 
visions rather than the "amended order"? 

Mr. Bowex. The "amended order" refers to a new order to be sub- 
mitted that is the initial order lias already been submitted and ap- 
proved which is for the dollar-per-bale checkoff. The "amended order 
authorized by the foro<roin<r provisions" would refer to a new order 
to be submitted in referendum for an additional amount to be deter- 
mined by the Cotton Board and the Secretary in conjunction. 

That is my understanding. Is that clear to the staff? 

Mr. Hogan. I will check it out with the Department. 

Mr. Bowen. Any problem, Mr. Bor ? 

Mr. Bor. No. 

Mr. Bowen. There is another technical amendment which I have. 
This is simply a renumbering of some of the provisions and a reorder- 
ing slightly. 

There is a change of the date for the expiration for the use of the 
appropriated 610 funds from July 1 to October 1 to conform with the 
new fiscal year next year. I would like to remind the committee mem- 
bers that this does not reflect the receipt of any appropriated section 
610 funds for fiscal 1977 but merely presumes that some of the hereto- 
fore appropriated fiscal 1976 moneys may be expended during fiscal 
1977. This merely authorizes the continued expenditure of those funds. 

I quote the amendment : 

Page 1, line 3, Immediately after the word "That" insert the sentence that ap- 
pears on page 2. lines 21 through 23 after "Sec 2." except that the date "Octoher 
1, 1977" should he substituted for the date "July 1, 1977". and strike such sen- 
tence where it now appears on lines 21 to 23. 

Page 2. line 21. insert after "Sec. 2." the language that now appears on page 1. 
line 3. after "That" through and including page 2. line 20. except that the words 
"Section 7(e)" should be substituted for "section 7(e)". 

Amend the title to conform to the changes made in the section order of the bill. 

Some moneys which are received will be contracted for. 

The practice that these funds mnst be obligated prior to the end of 
fiscal 1976; but they may be expended during fiscal 1977. So this merely 
conforms to the new date for the termination of the fiscal year. 

T would like to offer this. 

Is there any comment on this amendment? 

If not. all those in favor say aye. 

Opposed? 

Tt is agreed to. 

At this point, the Chair has no amendments to offer. 

Mr. Poach?. I move that this bill with the amendments be referred to 
the full committee. 

Mr. Krebs. 1 wonder whether the vice chairman would be kind 
enough to wait forjusl a moment. 



135 

I want to go back to what I said a few minutes ago. I would ap] 
ciate some discussion and opinions from members of the subcommittee. 

I am of the honest opinion that we cannot ignore the issue of reim- 
bursement for the cost of the referendum. 

I may be wrong, but I fee] that somebody will bring it up. 

We know what feelings arc concerning the expenditure of public 
funds for this purpose. You mentioned $6 million last war. I said it 
was $3 million. I heard some strong feelings expressed that this next 
time would be the last time that Congress would appropriate money. 

I would like to have some discussion regarding this matter. Based 
on that discussion. I may or may not offer an amendment which would 
provide for reimbursement of the cost of the referendum. 

Mr. Poage. You know how much the Federal Government spends 
holding labor elections ? 

Every time there is a question of organizing a plant then 1 has to be 
an election held there. 

Mr. Krebs. I assume, Mr. Chairman, that the question is addressed 
to me. 

Mr. Poage. Yes. 

Mr. Krebs. It would be a substantial amount. 

Mr. Poage. The answer is right there. What is sauce for the goose 
is sauce for the gander. 

Mr. Bowex. I would like to point out that there is room for disagree- 
ment on this, but it is the ("hair's feeling, and I have talked to a greal 
many of the others on this, that there are certain areas thai are in effect 
ministerial responsibilities and secretarial responsibilities. The con- 
cept of holding a referendum of this sort is a public responsibility. 

If the referendum is approved, then the operation of the program 
then becomes supported by the producers just as the gentleman from 
Texas pointed out that there are a number of other areas where 
referendum^ are held by the U.S. Government and in which the 
department in question bears the cost of the referendum. 

We are already taking a giant step forward in covering the cost of 
this and reducing the burden upon the taxpayers of the Nation. 

I should hope that our colleagues would be delighted to see this 
major reduction in cost to the taxpayer in an election year in the 
limited area of holding the referendum costs, I think it is a modest 
amount. 

I think also it provides an extra incentive for the Department to 
be as economical as possible in conducting the referendum. 

For example, as I pointed out earlier, when we first asked the 
Department what it would cost to hold the referendum, they indicated 
some $800,000. Some of us indicated a degree of incredulity at that 
figure. They reassessed it and decided that maybe it would only cost 
about $300,000. 

I think perhaps when it comes down to holding it, they might trim 
it still further. 

This is a very, very small figure. I think when the Department has 
to bear the cost it will find ways of trimming. 

Whereas if we leave it open-ended, in this case jusl as the point 
was made earlier by the gentleman from Texas, the Department might 
well pad the figure to we know not where. 



e\ 



136 

That is my feeling on the matter. 

Mr. Krebs. I will yield briefly to the gentleman from Louisiana 
because I would like to comment on what the Chairman has just said. 

Mr. Moore. I thank him for yielding. 

I am very much in sympathy with the gentleman from California's 
remarks. 

This is a consumer oriented Congress with a liberal bent. We are 
going to run into trouble. I am wondering what is the position of our 
cotton producers concerning this proposal. Are they willing not to 
have the program if they have to pay for it, or would they assume 
the cost ? 

If they are, I think we have much better chance of getting the 
program they want. If we don't, we will have trouble. 

I can foresee two or three Members who have gotten up on peanut 
programs and will get up on cotton, and we will go through that 
again, and we will lose the program on something such as this. 

I personally do not believe it is a public function to hold any kind 
of dealings with private industry. 

I really believe that's one of the problems that hurt us with the 
beef checkoff bill. We had a lot of people in sympathy with the beef 
producers that did not believe the Government should get into that 
area. I support that and I support this, but I believe the more that we 
can do to get the Government out of paying for this, then the better 
off we are going to be on the floor. 

It seems to me that what we could do is to put an amendment in 
here saying what we believe the cost to be and that the producers will 
pay the cost, not to exceed a certain amount. And that would prevent 
ITSDA from going wild and holding one that costs $2 million when 
they could do it for $300,000. 

Mr. Poage. Will the gentleman yield ? 

Mr. Krebs. Yes. 

Mr. Poaoe. As a practical matter, would it not be better for us 
to leave this bill as it stands? Let anybody who is trying to amend 
it offer their amendments and let us see if we cannot defeat the 
amendment. 

I am not sure whether we could or not. I agree that the gentleman 
from Louisiana is correct. There is a lot of sentiment on the other 
side, but I would like to defeat it. 

If we leave the bill as it is, undoubtedly somebody will come in 
with an amendment to make the producers pay this cost. 

If we defeat it, then the bill will stand as it is. If they put it in, 
we will be no worse off than if we put it in now . 

Mr. Krebs. May I comment on that ? 

Mr. Bowen. Yes. 

Mr. Krebs. It is possible that the point which was raised earlier 
may be overlooked in this discussion. 

It is my understanding that the beef checkoff bill is going to come 
up before this particular piece of legislation. 

How can we tell the entire House that in this particular bill we 
should not have the producers cover the cost of the referendum, while 
in the beef checkoff bill, which will have come up before the House 
previously, there is no such provision ? 



137 

Mr. Poage. This bill was passed several years ago. We are now 
simply amending the bill and the bill was passed with a clear pro- 
vision that the Federal Government would pay the cost of the 
referendum. 

That is the law. 

We can say that we are not changing that. On the beef bill, there 
was not any such provision. There had not been any such previous 
legislation. 

The beef people simply did not have the advantage of a preexisting 
law which the cotton people do have. 

W r e are not establishing a new program here. We are simply amend- 
ing the law. We are offering an amendment to the existing legislation. 

The cotton checkoff bill provided .for Government payment. That's 
the answer. 

Mr. Bowen. I would like to point out and agree with the gentle- 
man from Texas that it is the unfortunate history of events in this 
House, and certainly the distinguished gentleman from Texas can 
comment with greater authority than I, that there is a tendency of 
Members of this House to want to get a pound of flesh insofar as 
cotton — let's say a pound of cotton — on the floor or at some other 
place. They are not inclined to want to presume that anything that 
comes out of the Cotton Subcommittee or the Agriculture Committee 
is intact and complete as it arrives before them. 

So they are going to want to do something to us. and they want to 
come away with some kind of victory and amend what we have in 
some manner. 

So, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, the worst that can 
happen to us is that they will go ahead and cover these costs. If that 
happens on the floor, we certainly are no worse off than if we did it 
right here. So we might as well take the bill as is and let them have 
at it. If they w T ant to make that change, then let them go. 

Mr. Krebs. That sounds plausible if we overlook the fact — and 1 
should not say .fact, but assumption — that, on the floor, somebody in- 
going to raise the issue of consumer representation. 

If we can come to the House with, as we say in legal jargon, "clean 
hands'- and tell them that we have a bill which is paid for by the indus- 
try and which does not involve any public funds, we will be in a much 
better position to face that issue than we would via the route suggested 
by the distinguished chairman. 

Mr. Poage. We are again faced with the proposition that we may 
not make much impression. I think people who can read writing 
can understand it. 

If we establish a trend here so that the Federal Government should 
not pay for any of the referendums, then we will not be able to assure 
what will happen in the future on industrial disputes; but we can 
dead sure give them the assurance thai they will have trouble. 

If they want to establish the principle that the Federal Govern- 
ment must pay for all referendums. then the principle would require 
that they pay it in every labor dispute and that they pay for the 
referendums in every plant, which they now do. 

But if they want to have the interested parties pay the cost, then 
the same principle applies into the industrial sector. 



13S 

I do not know that there will be nnu-h desire to have equality of 
treatment, but there will be a lot of Members who will not want to 
face that different treatment for different groups of our citizens. 

I think that is the basis on which we have to stand — we will go 
along with them if they will pay all their costs; we will pay all of 
<airs. 

Hut if the Federal Government is going to pay all of their costs, 
then there is no reason for the Federal Government not to pay these 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. I am in total agreement with the gentle- 
man from Texas. I think he is exactly rignt. We are amending the 
bill. This is an old program. I think we would run into all sorts of 
problems if we proposed at this point that the referendum be borne 
by the producers. I think it is a mistake. 

As tlie chairman quite well knows and other members of the com- 
mittee know. I have some grave doubts about what is going to happen 
to this program anyway when it comes before the public. 

I think that farmers at this time of the year, as I testified last year 
when we had the hearings, need a good crop year before we vote on 
it. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the referendum would be 
planned after we have gotten a good prospective crop in the ground. 

Mr. Bowen. As I pointed out earlier, the Chair feels that it is not 
the responsibility of the subcommittee to determine when the refer- 
endum will be held. There are a number of us who feel that a mighty 
good planting season or good harvest might be necessary before this 
could receive the requisite number of votes to be approved. 

That is. of course, the responsibility for the Cotton Board and the 
Secretary to make that determination. It is the responsibility of 
others who are involved in the cotton industry to try to develop the 
support throughout the industry for it. 

We are merely here today to try to give what we might say is free- 
dom of choice to the cottongrowers of the country to determine 
whether or not they would like an additional assessment. 

We are determining this for them by this bill. We are here to give 
them that opportunity to make that decision. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I hope that you use your 
influence. I believe you do have some influence. I hope you will see to 
it that it is delayed until we do ^et a good crop. 

Mr. Moore. I would like to comment on Mr. Poage's remarks when 
he says he has not made an impression. Every time you speak you 
make an impression on me. T have tremendous respect for your judg- 
ment, and that's precisely why I am croing along this course of think- 
ing because T have heard you say time and time again that we are 
better off with half a loaf than none at all. From what I see of this 
Congress, it is not too loafy-minded to begin with. They are more 
for eating than they are for producing. That's what scares me. 

That is the onlv reason why T am pursuing this line of thought. Tf 
we pay for everybody else's referendum, then we ought to pay for this 
one. too. But. T am trying to go by prior lessons which you have taught 
me. That's all. 

Mr. Poage. Let's let the other fellow become the proponent and let 
him offer the amendment rather than us offering the amendment. 



139 

Mr. Bowen. The Chair is prepared to entertain any amendmenl on 
the subject. 

Mr. Krebs. I would like to offer this amendment. I have a practical 
problem in that I do not have the cosl of such a referendum in order 
to sot an upper limit as suggested by the gentleman Prom Louisiana. 

I would like to be able to offer such an upper limit. 

What T would like to do. Mr. Chairman, is to reserve the right to 
offer such an amendment when it comes before the full committee. 

Mr. Bowen. The gentleman always has that right. 

Mr. Krebs. I wanted to go on record. I did not want to leave the im- 
pression that I had abandoned my proposal. 

The reason is the one so well articulated by the gentleman from 
Louisiana : Regardless of what he or I may think of the present ( Con- 
gress — and I suspect we differ in our evaluations- — nevertheless, T think 
we both agree that the chances for passage arc better with this amend- 
ment in the bill. 

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bowen. If there is no other business, I recognize the gentleman 
from Texas. 

Mr. Poage. I recommend that we report this bill with the recom- 
mendation that it be passed by t he full committee. 

Mr. Moore. I ask for a rollcall. 

Mr. Bowen. The clerk will call the roll. 

(The rollcall follows:) 

Ayes : Representatives Jones of Tennessee, Krebs. Hightower, Poage, English 
(by proxy), Jenrette, Moore, Hagedorn (by proxy), Bowen. 
Nays : None. 

The Clerk. Nine ayes and no noes. 

Mr. Bowen. In that case the bill is agreed to. We will report it to 
the full committee with recommendation that it be passed. 
At this point the meeting is adjourned. 
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] 



COTTON RESEARCH AND PROMOTION ACT 
AMENDMENT 



THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10 :20 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chair- 
man) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Melcher, Bergland, Brown, Bo- 
wen, Rose, Breckinridge, Richmond, Nolan, Baldus, Krebs, Harkins, 
Hightower, Bedell, McHugh, Fithian, Jenrette, Thornton, Wampler, 
Seue ins, Findley, Madigan, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedprn, and Moore. 

Staff present: Fowler C. West, staff director; Egbert M. Bor, coun- 
sel; John E. Hogan, associate counsel; John M. Lindley and Nick 
Ashmore, staff assistants; Gene Moos, staff analyst; L. T. Easley, 
press assistant; Weldon Barton and Leon Geyer, staff consultants. 
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and Consumer Relations; 
James Culver and George Dunsmore, staff consultants, Subcommittee 
on Dairy and Poultry; Alan Gray, staff consultant. Subcommittee on 
Livestock and Grains: Jerry Jorgensen, stall' consultant. Subcom- 
mittee on Department Operations, Investigations and Oversight: 
Glenda Temple, staff assistant. 

The Chairman. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order. 

The committee meets this morning for consideration of the bill 
H.Iv. 10 '30, to amend the Cotton Research and Promotion Act by pro- 
viding for an additional assessment and reimbursement for certain 
expenses incurred by the Secretary of Agriculture ; and to repeal sec- 
tion 610 of the Agriculture Act of 1970 pertaining to the use of com- 
modity credit corporation funds for research and promotion. 

This bill was reported on April 7 by the Subcommittee on Cotton. 
Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and before the 
committee for amendment; and it will be placed in the record at this 
point. 

[See p. 125 of subcommittee meeting.] 

The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the distinguished chairman 
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Bowen. 

Mr. Bowen. Mr. Chairman, at a time when the taxpayers are being 
asked increasingly to support a variety of social and economic solu- 
tions in this country, it does give me a great deal of pleasure on be- 
half of the Cotton Subcommittee to give the Agriculture Committee 
and the Congress an opportunity to eliminate public funding for a su 
cessful and ongoing program. 

(141) 



77-139 O - 77 - 10 



142 

That is precisely what ILK. 10930 does. It simply removes the tax- 
payer support, for a program winch has been m operation for some 
several years now. 

In 1^*0, the Agriculture Art of that year provided for public sup- 
port through the Commodity Credit Corporation for research and 
promotion m cotton. For 2 years, some $10 million each year was 
appropriated. 

For the following ;'> years, we reduced that to $3 million a year. 
This year we will reduce it to zero. 

The bill does two things. First of all, as I have said, it ends public 
support for this program. Secondly, it allows the producers themselves 
the option of deciding at what level they would like to provide support 
through their own contributions, namely, through the check otf system. 

This is pursuant to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act of 
1966. This statute, which has been on the books for ten years now, is 
not being altered in any basic way. We are simply giving the farmers 
an opportunity to decide whether or not they would like to increase 
their support. 

We are not tampering with the basic guarantees, the basic structure 
of that statute which continue. We simply give the cotton farmers of 
America the opportunity to decide in a public referendum whether or 
not they would like to increase their support for research and promo- 
tion in cotton or not, 

The mechanics of that, the whole structure of that system is con- 
tinued untouched. 

What is the reason for this? I think for most of us the reason is 
obvious: Because of the impact of inflation in this country, the cost 
of research and promotion, the competition frankly from the syn- 
thetics industry. Very briefly. I would point out that the seven largest 
producers in the synthetic field possess 84 percent of the synthetic ca- 
pacity of the country. 

The largest single producer controls a third of all the production 
in the country. There are a quarter of a million cotton farmers in 
America. In 1974, the giants of the synthetic industry invested $234 
million in fiber research compared with cotton's $5.4 million. 

Synthetics have outspent cotton in advertising. In 1974, they spent 
an estimated $60 million to promote their fibers as against $3.4 million 
for cotton. That is an 18-to-l superiority. 

Of course, we realize that cotton cannot really catch up with ad- 
vances in the powerful synthetic industry of the Xation in terms of 
research and promotion, but we want at least to give cotton the op- 
portunity to move ahead gradually and to keep up with the increasing 
costs of inflation and the competition coming from the synthetic 
industry. 

I believe that there has been a great deal of success seen in recent 
years. 

We all know that over the last 50 years or so there has been a major 
shift in terms of consumption patterns in this country. From about 
I960 to the early 1970's, there was a major shift from cotton to 
synthetics. 

Now, as a result of the research and promotion activities that we 
have authorized here in the Congress. T believe that we have seen a 
distinct turnaround. We now see that cotton is not only holding its 



143 

own with the synthetic industry, but is actually moving ahead more 
rapidly. 

I think this is a major step forward for American agriculture and 
for the American consumer because the consumers have made it very 

clear that they want what natural fiber- offers them. 

They want the comfort that cotton offers them. As a consequence, in 
order to allow American agriculture to do the job we here in the Con 
gress ought to be given an opportunity simply to give the farmer- of 

the country a chance to decide for themselves at to whether or not 
they will assess themselves additional charges to support the indus 
to support research and promotion, and at the same time we are giving 
ui) anv kind of public funding for research and promotion to cotton. 

That simply, gentlemen, is what 10930 does. I commend it to your 
attention. I will be very happy to answer any questions you might 
want to direct on that subject. 

Mr. Findley. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. I think the gentleman's time has expired. The ( Jhair 
will recognize the gentleman from Illinois. 

Mr. Findley. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

I applaud the repeal of section 610. I long felt that that was an 
unwise provision of law. I certainly congratulate the gentleman on 
sponsoring legislation which will have that effect. 

The checkoff, of course, exists under sanction of law. Because of that, 
I think it is important that the Secretary of Agriculture have a posi- 
tion of review authority over the expenditure of these funds. 

I would like to ask the gentleman what position of authority will 
the Secretary have over the expenditure of funds. 

Mr. Bowex. I would point out that the statute of 1966 is, of course, 
not touched in terms of this authority. The same authority which the 
Secretary has had for the past 10 years he retains. 

I would be very happy to read some section from that statute. 

Mr. Fixdley. Could I clarify it with this observation? Cotton got 
into some bad publicity not too long ago by sending directors and their 
wives to Innsbruck at the expense of the fund. 

The Secretary of Agriculture entered an objection to that expendi- 
ture but the expenditure was made nevertheless and the organization 
got around the problem by using funds which were acquired at an 
earlier date. 

My question is: Would the Secretary have authority to review effec- 
tively expenditure funds of that nature ? 

Mr. Bowex. Let me comment on two matters. First, I would point 
out that Cotton. Incorporated which is the private organization which 
is contracted with by the Cotton Board and the Secretary for pur] 
of research and promotion, apparently with the best of intentions and 
presuming that there was no problem, did announce an intention to 
carry out the particular promotional activity which the gentleman has 
mentioned. 

Upon receiving an objection on the part of the Secretary, that orga- 
nization then called upon private funds that were raised prior to the 
passage of this legislation. 

Mr. Findley. During the voluntary checkoff period, before any 
public law was passed. 

Mr. Bowex. These were voluntary funds raised when there was 
an organization called the Cotton Producers Institute in existence 



144 

which was not statutory in any way whatsoever. It was a completely 
private organization, with private funds altogether; not even under the 

sanction of law. They used those funds. 

Under present law. under the L966 law. let me just read a few of 
the sections from it which I think might help to assure the gentleman 
of what is there 1 : 

Providing that the Cotton Hoard shall, subject to (g) helow, develop and sub- 
mit, to the Secretary for his approval any sales, promotion or research plan or 
projects. 

Providing that the Cotton Hoard shall, subject to (g) below, submit to the 
Secretary for his approval budgets of its anticipated expenses and disbursements 
in the administration of the order including probably costs of advertising and 
promotion and research and development projects. 

Providing that the Cotton Hoard shall maintain such books and records and 
make such records available to the Secretary as he may prescribe for appropriate 
accounting by the Cotton Hoard of all funds entrusted to it. 

Mr. Findley. Then the Secretary's approval is required. 

Mr. Bowen. Under the statute, it is my understanding that the 

Secretary has full authority to exercise that role. 

Finally, providing that no funds collected by the Cotton Board 
under the order shall, in any manner, be used for the purpose of in- 
fluencing governmental policy or action except as provided by (A) (4) 
above. 

In other words, there are two ways of going at it. First, there are 
statutory guarantees. Second, the Secretary has the authority to issue 
orders and regulations pursuant to the stattite which lie lias done in 
a number of instances. 

Therefore, I believe that there is fully adequate protection for the 
concerns of the gentleman. 

Mr. Findley. I thank the gentleman. 

I have another question. Why is section 610 terminated as of Oc- 
tober 1, 1977? Why not October 1, 1976? We have not appropriated 
against fiscal 1977 as yet. 

Mr. Bowen. The gentleman is correct. There will be no appropri- 
ated funds in fiscal year 1977, however, there are some ongoing con- 
tracts which expend funds which will be obligated prior to the end- 
ing of fiscal year 1977. 

In other words, there are contracts whose execution will require 
some work to be conducted during fiscal year 1977 although there will 
be no fiscal year 1977 appropriated. Therefore, you need the author- 
izing language to continue through fiscal 1977 to allow the completion 
of these projects which were actually carried out with appropriated 
funds from fiscal year 1976. 

That is simply a part of the fiscal structure of the Government I am 
advised and it is necessary to have that language there. 

Mr. Findley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate the gentle- 
man on a good bill. 

The Chairman. Mr. Krebs? 

Mr. Krebs. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. As a member of the subcom- 
mittee I would like to congratulate the chairman for the fine job he 
has been doing. 1 agree with his remarks. I think this is indeed a step 
in the right direction. 

I commend the industry for its willingness to support this legisla- 
tion, to get away from past implications of Federal Government fi- 
nancing; the project should really be the responsibility of the industry. 






145 

I am very happy to be able to support this bill. 

Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time I will offer an amendment 
which, I think, is consistent with the spirit of tins bill and which 
would provide for payment of t he cost of t be referendum by t be indus- 
try. The payment would be made irregardless of whether the referen- 
dum succeeds or fails. 

The Chairman. Is there any discussion of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Jones? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Will the gentleman from California 
yield for questions ? 

Mr. Krbbs. I will be more than happy to yield. 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. What is the estimated cost of the 
referendum ? 

Mr. Krebs. Mr. Chairman, if you would like for me to discus- the 
amendment at this time. I will be glad to do so. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from North Carolina has the time. 
Will the gentleman from North Carolina yield to the gentleman from 
Tennessee ? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Tennessee. 

Mr. Jones of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Chairman, all I want to do is to associate myself with the chair- 
man of the cotton subcommittee of which I am a member. 

I think it is a very good bill. I think that we should pass this bill out 
without any problem whatsoever because it really remedies some of 
the problems we have had in the past. 1 see why no one should be crit- 
ical of this bill as it is now drawn. 

Mr. Bowen. Would the gentleman from North Carolina yield? 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. I yield. 

Mr. Bowex. I might be able to shed some light on the amendment 
offered by Mr. Krebs and point out that, in subcommittee, I took the 
position along with the majority of my colleagues that I felt that, in 
comparison with some of the other kinds of checkoff legislation which 
are already on the statute books which did not provide for the pro- 
ducer paying for the cost of the referendum, that it would not be 
appropriate to single out the cotton industry for this purpose. 

However, after further consideration of it and discussion with De- 
partment officials and with other members of the subcommittee and 
the full committee. I have personally concluded that that cost is limited 
enough, minimal enough that I think we could well afford to go ahead 
and cover it through this legislation. 

Consequently. I have no objection to the amendment being offered 
by Mr. Krebs. T have two letters from the Department, Mr. Krebs. if 
I might simply report this information to the committee. 

Let me point out that initially when we asked the Department to 
tell us what it would cost to conduct a referendum we were told that 
it would cost about $800,000. We then asked them to look again a 
little more closely and they decided it would cost $300,000. 

Then we asked them to sharpen their pencil just a bit more and make 
an effort to say precisely what it would cost and we weir informed 



146 

by A.SCS that their oosl would be $128,900 will i another possible 
$25,000 added to that. 

We were told by AMS — Agriculture Marketing Service— that their 
cost would be approximately $21,100. 

The totals of those amount to some $174,600. Adding a little extra 
sum for flexibility, we arrived at the figure of $200,000 as a perfectly 
adequate figure to cover the cost of the referendum. 

We feel that that is a fair figure. Wc feel, frankly, that wo arc lean- 
ing over backwards to make the hill a- attractive as possible. 

I believe this would strengthen the hill. As I say, I have no objec- 
tion to the amendment ottered by Mr. Krehs. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from California has the time. 

Mr. Krebs. I am more than happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Florida. 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. Krehs. let me inquire about the amendment. Is 
there not some concern about two things: First, that if the industry 
participates in or pays for elections, somehow the election is less im- 
partial because of its financial interest \ It would seem to me. though, 
that it is just bad policy for the industry to <ret involved with that 
kind of cost. 

Second, if this is not a ^ood policy — as is recognised by the fact that 
it i> not otherwise applied in bills of this Congress — then the fact that 
it is not £oin<i to cost too much is not the criteria. If it is bad policy, 
the fact that it is cheap does not make it any better. 

I wonder if you would comment on those two questions. 

Mr. Krebs. I will be glad to. 

First of all. I would like to call the attention of the gentleman from 
Florida to page 1 of the bill, where it specifically provides for the 
supervision of this particular referendum by the Secretary. I frankly 
do not share the gentleman's concern as to possible lack of impartiality. 
because my amendment provides that the cost be reimbursed to the 
Secretary. 

Second. I do not feel that, merely because the cost is <roin<r to be 
relatively small, this is <roin£ to make it any more attractive for people 
to vote for the proposal. I think people are either going to vote for 
or against the proposal on the basis of the merits of the proposal itself, 
rather than the cost of the election. 

Mr. Fixdlky. Will the gentleman yield i 

Mr. Krebs. I would be happy to. 

Mr. Fixdlky. I think it ought to be noted, too. that the beef checkoff 
we just passed has provisions in it to recover all expenses, even 
incidental ones, and that an egg checkoff that was recently approved 
lias a similar provision. 

Therefore, this is really a traditional rather than an exception 
provision. 

Mr. Krebs. Thank you. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from Illinois. 

Let me also point out — since you mentioned the beef check-off bill — 
something that I think should be made 1 clear. Under the provisions of 
this amendment, the cost of the referendum would be paid by the 
cotton industry, regardless of whether the referendum carried or did 
not carry, which is not the case under the beef hill as I understand it. 

Mr. Kelly. Would the gentleman yield for further question? 



147 

Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kelly. With regard to a situation where the cost is going to be 
borne by the funds arising from the checkoff after the checkoff is 
passed, this is quite a substantial difference from having industry pay 
the thing before the election on a win or lose basis. 

That is not the same. 

Mr. Krebs. Let me try again to clarify it. If the referendum cai i 
then the cost will come out of the funds that will be contributed. I f the 
referendum does not carry, the industry will bear the cost anyway. 
Remember. Cotton, Inc. is in operation right now. It gets si per bale 
right now. so there is money iti the kitty with which to pay the cosl 
of this referendum even if it fail-. 

Mr. Kelly. Therefore, your amendment provides that the cost will 
come out of the fund- derived from the checkoff if the referendum is 
successful. 

Mr. Krebs. If it is not successful, it is going to come out of the $] 
per bale that is now being collected. So. either way. the Federal 
Government is going to be reimbursed for the cost of the referendum. 

The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield '. 

Mr. Krebs. I will be happy to. 

The Chairman. I should like to correct a possible misimpression. 
Although these checkoff acts are not entirely consistent, under the 
Beef Research and Information Act. the out of pocket expenses of the 
referendum are to be carried under that authority whether or not the 
referendum is passed. 

This will require, in the case of the Beef Information Act. that the 
sponsoring organization post bonds to cover the cost of that referen- 
dum in either event. 

Again, we are not making any special departure from established 
policy with respect to cotton. It is not being singled out adversely 
in this instance. 

Is there any further discussion? Mr. Baldusl 

Mr. Baldtjs. I have no malice at all toward the legislation, but I 
think it is a help in the legislative process to ask the >ubcommittee 
chairman or the staff for a summary of the principal appearance- for 
and against the bill and the nature of the subcommittee recommenda- 
tion which would be helpful because, although the subcommittee has 
considered it. the full committee has not. 

We have no report before us. 

Mr. Bowex. I am not sure that I precisely understand the nature 
of the gentleman's request. I l>elieve all the members have available 
for them the testimony which was delivered on December 10 for 
and against. 

The bill, as you note, is a very, very brief one. I have tried to outline 
the contents of it. Is there some 1 specific question about the content of 
the bill that the gentleman has that I could answer? 

The Chairman. I think the gentleman i-> asking for a recitation of 
the witnesses who appeared both for and against the legislation. 

Mr. Baldus. Witnesses for and against, major organizations for 
and against. 

Mr. Bowex. Of course, most of the major farm organizations in the 
Nation, including the Farm Bureau, have testified for the bill. 1 



148 

me think if there is any organization, per se— there wore one or two 
individuals speaking on their own who did oppose it. 

The ratio was something like 20 to 1 in favor of the bill. I do not 
think there was a single farm organization in the Nation which 
opposed it. I think all favored it. 

Mr. Baij>us. The subcommittee recommendation is unanimous? 

Mr. Bowen. It was a unanimous vote in the subcommittee. There 
was not a single vote opposed to the hill when we reported it from 
the subcommittee to the full committee. 

The Chairman. Is there any other discussion at this juncture of 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. Mr. Krebs? 

[Xo response. ] 

The Chairman. I,f not. all those in favor of the Krebe amendment 
will signify by saying aye. 

[Chorus of ayes. | 

The Chairman. Opposed? 

f"Xo response.] 

The Chairman. The ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. 

[The amendment follows:] 

Page 1. line 6. immediately before the word "for" insert the words "for re- 
imbursing the Secretary (1) for expenses not to exceed $200,000 incurred by 
him in connection with any referendum conducted under section S. and (2)". 

The Chairma x. Are there other amendments to the bill ? 

Mr. Findley. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Illinois. 

Mr. Fixdlky. I have an amendment to pa<re 2. line 20. I believe the 
clerk has copies of that amendment. It does not bear my name but I 
would like to offer it. 

The Chairman. Would you read it, please? 

Mr. Fixdlky. Yes; it would add to the lanrruaofe of the bill these 
words : "Xo authority under this act may he used as a basis to advertise 
or solicit votes in any referendum in favor of an increase in the rate 
of assessment with funds collected under this act." 

I am sure it is the intent of the author of the bill that funds collected 
under the authority of this act not be used for such a purpose but I 
think it would really enhance the prospects of passage of this bill as 
well as clarify what officials of the Cotton, Inc. and related organiza- 
tion may interpret to have this language in the bill. 

Mr. Bowen. Would the gentleman yield \ 

Mr. Fixdlky. Yes. 

Mr. Bowen. Offhand, I see no objection unless the staff does in terms 
of some technical factor there, but I would point out to the gentleman, 
as I have read to him before, that the statute of 1966 does say explicitly 
that no funds collected by the Cotton Board under the order shall 
". . . in any manner be used for the purpose of influencing govern- 
mental policy or action." 

That, of course, involves referendum. However,, if the gentleman 
feels that that would strengthen it I personally would have no objec- 
tion. 

Could I ask Mr. Bor if he has any problem with the language being 
offered. 

Mr. Bor, I do not. Mr. Bowen. 

Mr. Bowen. In that case, I have none. 






149 

The Chairman. I would like to interject here that that, as I recall, 

was directed specifically to the use of any fund- collected by i 1 
other checkoff funds in order to effed other legislation or political or 
governmental policy or for any political purpose. 

I think this merely underlines that intent. 

Mr. Thornton S 

Mr. Thornton. I have one question perhaps to make the legislative 
history clear. I assumed the act prohibits the use of these fund- either 
in favor of or opposed to the adoption of the referendum and that tie- 
phrase. "* ::: * to solicit votes in any referendum in favor of an in- 
crease * * *" is meant to describe the nature of the referendum and 
not to limit the use of the funds for but allow them to be used 



against- 



The Chairman. I think the gentleman raises a good point. Perhaps 
the gentleman from Illinois would be willing to ask unanimous consent 
to revise his amendment to say "* * * in any referendum * :: ::: ". 

Mr. Fixdley. Relating to the rate of assessment. 

The Chairman. Yes, does the gentleman from Illinois ask unani- 
mous consent to so revise the amendment ] 

Mr. Fixdley. Yes. 

The Chairman. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. Jen ret te \ 

Mr. Jexrette. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman if 
there is any way that the word '"any" could be construed as to pro- 
hibit the cotton council from using the funds for any other type of 
referendum that they might want to have in-house? 

The Chairman. As I understand the intent and reach of the amend- 
ment, it does not affect the cotton council or the use of its privately 
collected funds for doing anything not foreseen in the Cotton Re- 
search and Promotion Act. 

As a private organization, the cotton council, of course, could use 
privately available funds for any purpose that is otherwise permitted 
by law. 

What is reached here is that the collection from the checkoff under 
the 1066 act cannot be used to effect governmental policy. What Mr. 
Findley's amendment would do is to specify that in addition to those 
restrictions no funds collected under the act could be used for the 
purpose of promoting or opposing or otherwise attempting to directly 
influence the result of the referendum. 

Mr. Jexrette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. If there is no further discussion, will all those in 
favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Ilinois signify by 
saying aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

The Chairman. Those opposed? 

[Xo response.] 

The Chairman. The ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. 

Are there other amendments to the bill \ 
| Xo response.] 

The Chairman. Is there other discussion of the bill \ 
[No response.] 

The Chairman. If not. the gentleman from Texas is recognized. 



150 

Mr. POAOE. I move that II. R. 10930 be reported to the House with 

the recommendation that it pass. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas moves that the hill 
U.K. L0930, as amended, be reported to the House with a recommenda- 
tion that it do pass. 

All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. 

( Chorus of ayes. | 

The Chairman. Those opposed, no. 

| No response.] 

The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. The 
clerk will record that a quorum is present. 

Mr. Howkx. Mr. Chairman, 1 might also ask that the staff be allowed 
the opportunity to make any necessary technical changes. I know 
of one hut if they were to be given that traditional right then I would 
opt for that. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the staff will be authorized to 
make such grammatical, technical, clerical, and other amendments 
to the bill as are necessary to properly reflect the action taken by the 
committee. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The Chair intends to seek a rule on the bill just reported. All mem- 
bers will have >\ legislative days to submit comments to be included 
in the report to be submitted to the Committee on Rules. 

[The committee proceeded to other business.] 



LAND ACQUISITION FINDS FOR BOUNDARY 
WATERS CANOE AREA, MINNESOTA 



WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building. Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chair- 
man) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage. de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee. Mathis, Bergland, Bowen, Rose, 
Litton, Breckinridge, Richmond, Nolan, Weaver. Baldus, Krebs, 
Harkin, Hightower, Bedell, McHugh, English, Fithian, Jenrette, 
Thornton, Wampler, Sebelius, Findley, Thone, Johnson, Peyser, 
Heckler, Jeffords. Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn, and Moore. 

Staff present: Fowler C. West staff director; Robert M. Bor and 
Hyde H. Murray, counsels; William A. Imhof and John E. Hogan, 
associate counsels; Gene Moos, staff analyst; James E. Springfield. 
food programs specialist; John M. Lindley, staff assistant: L. T. 
Easley, press assistant; James Culver and George Dunsmore, staff 
consultants. Subcommittee on Dairy and Poultry; Weldon Barton 
and Leon Geyer, staff consultants. Subcommittee on Domestic Market- 
ing and Consumer Relations: Leighton Lang, staff consultant. Sub- 
committee on Oilseeds and Rice; Alan Gray, staff consultant. Sub- 
committee on Livestock and Grains ; Jerry Jorgensen. staff consultant, 
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Investigations and Over- 
sight ; Glenda Temple, staff assistant. 

The Chairman. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order. 

The Chair would like to introduce to the committee some distin- 
guished members from the Federal Republic of Germany who are 
visiting the United States. 

Mr. Vitta is here and Mr. Vega. Mr. Vega is head of the section on 
European economic and agricultural policy for the Federal Chancel- 
lory. Mi\ Vitta is the chief of the section of long-range European and 
committee matters in the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and 
Forestry. 

They are accompanied by representatives of the Foreign Agricul- 
tural Service. 

We are very happy to have you visiting us here this morning. 

HApplause.] 

The committee has a matter of some urgency which relates to a bill 
introduced by our colleague. Air. Oberstar. IT.R. 10540. 

(151) 



152 

Without objection, I would like to take this matter up very briefly 
and see if the committee would like to attempt to dispose of it today. 

Without objection, at this point a copy of the bill, U.K. L0546, will 
l»e Inserted in the record. 

| The hill U.K. L0546 and the CJ.S. Department of Agriculture 
report follow : | 



153 



IMur CONGBESS 
1st Session 



H. R. 10546 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

November 4, 1975 

Mr. Oberstar introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Agriculture 



A BILL 

To amend the Act of June 22, 1948, as amended, to provide 
for the acquisition of additional lands, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That section 6 of the Act of June 22, 1948 (62 Stat. 570) . 

4 as amended (16 U.S.C. 577h) , is further amended to read 

5 as follows: 

6 "Sec. 6. There are authorized to be appropriated from 

7 the Land and Water Conservation Fund established by the 

8 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 

9 897, as amended), such sums as are necessary to cany out 

10 the provisions of this Act, and such sums may be used for 

11 the payment of court judgments in condemnation actions 

1 brought under authority of this Act without regard to the 

2 date such condemnation actions were initially instituted: 
i» Provided, That the total appropriations from the hand and 
4 Water Conservation Fund shall not exceed $4,500,000.". 



154 



Department of Aonicrr/ruRE, 

Office oftue Secretary, 
lYashtnyton. D.C.. January S3, 1976. 
! [on. Tuoai vs S. Foley, 

tmmUtee on Agru alitor, 
JIovh of /«'< presi ntati 

I )e \i: Mi:. Chairman : As > on requested, here is the report of the De- 
partment of Agriculture on II. R. 10546, a hill "To amend the act of 
June 22, 1948, as amended, to provide for the acquisition of additional 
land-, and for other purposes." 

U.K. 10546 is identical to a draft hill that was transmitted to the 
Speaker of the TTonse of Representatives on August 11, 1075, by this 
Department. We recommended that II. Jl. 10546 he enacted. 

Section G of the act of dune 22, 1948, as amended, authorizes appro- 
priations for the acquisition of lands in the Boundary Waters Canoe 
Area, a component of the National Wilderness Preservation Sys- 
tem located within the Superior National Forest in northeastern 
Minnesota. 

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area is a region of exceptional nat- 
ural beauty, containing many lakes and streams that are linked to- 
gether or in such close proximity as to proyide excellent opportunities 
for canoe travel. In recognition of the uniqueness of the canoe area and 
certain adjacent lands, 'the act of July 10, 1930 (46 Stat. 1020), pro- 
vided that the shorelines of waterways used primarily by canoeists 
would Ik? maintained to preserve their natural character and that there 
should be no further change in the natural or existing water level of 
any lake or stream. In the late 1940's it became apparent that private 
lands, resorts, and cabins within a portion of the canoe area should be 
acquired to safeguard the exceptional public values. To this end, the 
act of June 22. 1948. authorized and directed the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture to acquire lands and appurtenances thereto within approximately 
two-thirds of the canoe area. The 194S act limited the amount that 
could 1k j appropriated for such acquisition to $500,000. The 1948 act 
was subsequently amended to authorize acquisition within the balance 
of the canoe area and to increase limitations on appropriations to the 
present level of $4.5 million. 

At the present time, $4.5 million has been appropriated and ex- 
pended for flie acquisition of lands within the Boundary Waters Ca- 
noe Area. Therefore, the limitation prevents any further acquisition, 
ILR. 10546 would amend the 1948 act to authorize the use of $4.5 mil- 
lion from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for acquisition and 
thus raise the total limitation to $9 million. 



155 



Since passage of the 1048 act and the amendments thereto, tin* Laud 
and Water Conservation Fund has emerged as the principal source of 
funds for acquiring lands for outdoor recreat ion purposes and wilder- 
ness. In lieu of seeking an additional appropriations authorization 
relating to the 1948 act, we would prefer to fund the further needs of 
the canoe area within the total amounts appropriated to the Depart- 
ment from the fund. This would allow a greater degree of flexibility 
to meet funding needs should a critical tract of land within the canoe 
area suddenly become available for purchase. 

H.R. 10546 would also amend the 1948 act to authorize the payment 
of court judgments in condemnation actions brought under authority 
of the act without regard to the date such condemnation actions were 
initially instituted. This authority is needed to enable the Department 
to pay all of the money awarded by a Federal court to the owner of 
certain property acquired under the act through condemnation pro- 
ceedings. The award occurred at the time when expenditures under the 
act were close to tho, limit of appropriations. The award exceeded the 
amount reserved for payment and all funds remaining within the au- 
thorization limit. 

In conclusion, H.R. 1054G would make it possible for the Depart- 
ment to continue to cany out the purpose of the act, which is to pro- 
vide for the acquisition of lands vulnerable to forms of use and devel- 
opment that could impair the unique qualities and natural features 
of the wilderness canoe country. With the additional authorization, we 
would seek to acquire 7.534 acres remaining in private ownership and 
14,085 acres of former privately owned lands that have been forfeited 
to county governments for nonpayment of taxes. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no ob- 
jection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the 
administration's program. 
Sincerely, 

Joiix A. Knebel, 

Under Secretary. 



156 

M . Bergland. I ask unanimous consent that our colleague, Con- 
si ian James ( tberstar, be permitted to speak to the issue which is 
confined to his district and is of some urgency. 

He was sponsor of the House bill, and the manor lias passed the 

Senate. At the proper time, I would move to substitute the Senate text 
with the I Louse bill number. 

The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Obi rstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This legislation would give the U.S. Forest Service authorization 
to acquire additional property within the boundary waters canoe 
area of the Superior National Forest in Northeastern Minnesota — 
in my district. 

In L948 Congress enacted legislation authorizing land acquisition 
in the BWCA. The authorization was limited to $4.5 million and 
26,000 acres have been acquired at a cost of nearly $4.5 million — 
$4,499,000 -to he exact. 

The aut horization has been exhausted. 

There is a judgment outstanding for acquisition of some property, 
hut since the authorization lias l>een exhausted, the Forest Service 
cannot pay the property owner. They owe him, with interest, 
$20,534.69 since November 30, 1972. 

The Forest Service attempted to satisfy that judgment out of the 
land and water conservation fund but were blocked from doinjr 
so by GAO and ordered instead to seek an extension of the existing 
law. inasmuch as there was a law already on the books authorizing 
funds for the acquisition of this property. 

That is why I drafted and introduced this bill. It will <rive the 
Forest Service additional authorization needed to satisfy this judg- 
ment and acquire some additional property — some 21.619 acres within 
the BWCA at an estimated cost of 84 million. 

The negotiations for these additional acquisitions have already been 
completed. It is Largely wilderness area and there is no controversy 
on dispute whatsoever in my district over this transaction. 

The main issue at stake here is the long-overdue justice to Jake 
Pete, the property owner, who is in his mid-70's and has been without 
this money. He borrowed money to <ret another business started since 
the Forest Service bought out his original business. I think the Gov- 
ernment owes it to him to satisfy this judgment. If we could *ret this 
matter taken care of. then justice, lon<r overdue, wotdd be rendered 
to this good and kindly gentleman. 

The Chairman. Are the reports on the bill favorable ? 

Mr. Bergland. Mr. Chairman, the reports from the Administration 
are favorable. We have copies of a letter dated to you on January 23, 
1!>7<> signed by Under Secretary Jack Knebel. 

I move that the language on bill IT.R. 10540 be amended by striking 
everything after the enacting clause and substituting in lieu thereof 
the text of the Senate bill S. 1526. 

The ( Jhairman. Is there any discussion of the motion \ 

Mr. Poaoe. What i- the difference in the language \ 

Mr. Bergland, The substantive changes are nil. The move is merely 
to con form with the Senatc-pas-ed bill. 

Mi-. Ashmore. can you describe the details and technicalities \ 

Mr. Ashmore. The bill, as introduced, provides for such sums as 
may be necessary, with a limitation of *4.5 million. There is a possi- 



157 

bility of confusion in that there is at present a limitation of >{.;, 
million. With the proposed amendment, the committee would make it 
clear that an addit tonal $4.5 million is ant horized. 

This is arrived at by adding SL.~> million to the existing authoriza- 
tion already in law. This is the sum necessary and requested by the 
Department. That, basically is the difference. 

Mr. Poage. In other words, it is double the amount of the House 
bill? 

Mr. Ashmore. Xo. It is a clarifying amendment to avoid any am- 
biguity or confusion. The amendment strikes an existing section of 
law containing an authorization of $4.5 million. The bill as introduced 
limits the authorization to $4.5 million. There exists the possibility 
of confusion that this may not be construed as additional fund-. 

Mr. Poage. And then the other i> $9 million. That's about double. 

Mr. Ashmore. The amendment is designed to correct a possible 
misunderstanding and to insure that the $i.5 million authorized would 
be in addition to the existing $4.5 million. 

There is $4.5 million presently authorized. The s ( .) million is derived 
by adding $4.5 million to that. 

Mr. Bergland. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. Poage, your answer is correct. It does double the amount and 
that's the purpose of the bill. It is to be able to ado! $1.5 million to 
the bill to be able to complete the transaction. 

That fund would be derived from the proceeds of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. 

Mr. Poage. I am not suggesting that that is wrong, but I would like 
to understand these things instead of having them brought out here 
and be told that we have to pay a farmer who did not get paid 5 or 6 
years ago that we have to pay him $29,000 and then find we have a 
$9 million appropriation bill. 

I would like to see what we are doing. 
Mr. Bergland. The gentleman from Texas is consistent in this 
regard. 

It does, indeed, raise the authorization by $4.5 million. 

Mr. Ashmore. The Senate Report on this bill reads: The amend- 
ment removes an ambiguity arising from the bill as originally reported 
from the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. 

Deleted from that bill was the original $4.5 million authorization. 
This inadvertently raised the question of whether the new $4.5 mil- 
lion authorization was truly an authorization of additional funds. 

Mr. Poage. That is exactly the question I asked. 

I asked if these were additional funds. Then we were told that. no. 
it did not do anything. 

It does. 

I'm not protesting it. I'm not objecting. But let us not try to bring 
these things in and suggest it is not doing it when it is. 

I'm not going to vote against the bill because of that, but I would 
like to know what is in it. 

Mr. Oberstar. If the gentleman will yield. I will explain. 

The Forest Service has added some rather cumbersome language. 
Mi-. Chairman, and it is confusing. 

The gentleman is correct. There was an original 1948 authoriza- 
tion by this committee of which the <rentleman from Texas was a 



158 



member at the time. It authorized $4.5 million. That $4.5 million has 
been exhausted. 

This hill authorizes an additional SL.~> million. 

The Forest Service totaled it up: $4.5 million authorized and ex- 
hausted; $4.5 million of new authorization— a total of si) million. 

The gentleman is correct. 

Mr. Poaoe. Thank you. 

The Chairman, Is there any further discussion? 

Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion 
by the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. Bergland. 

All those in favor signify by saying aye. 

( Apposed J 

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. 

Mr. Bergland. Mr. Chairman, I move that the hill U.K. 1054(5. as 
amended, he reported with the recommendation that it do pass. 

The Chairman. Any discussion? 

All those in favor of the motion from the gentleman from Minne- 
sota that the hill U.K. L0546, as amended, he reported to the House 
with the recommendation that it he passed, signify by saying aye. 

Opposed 1 

The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. 

The Chair would like to, because this is an authorization bill, have 
the report filed at the appropriate time toward the end of the week. 

The Budget Act will require these hills to he reported to the House. 

Without objection, any dissenting, additional, or other views will 
he submitted to counsel's office no later than Friday noon. Would that 
he agreeable I 

Does any Member desire to file any additional views ! 

[No response.] 

Tf not. we will proceed to file the hill as soon as the staff can com- 
plete the report. 

Without ohjection, so ordered. 

[The committee proceeded to consider other husiness.] 



EMERGENCY LEASE AND TRANSFER OF TOBACCO 

ALLOTMENTS 

(South Carolina and Georgia) 



TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met at 10:20 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 
1301, Longworth House Office Building. Hon. Thomas S. Foley ( chair- 
man) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
Tennessee, Melcher, Mathis, Bergland, Brown, Bowen, Rose, Breckin- 
ridge, Richmond. Nolan, Baldus, Krebs, Harkin. Hightower, Bedell, 
McHugh, English, Fithian, Jenrette, Thornton. Wampler, Sebelius, 
Thone, Symms, Madigan, Heckler, Jeffords, Kelly. Grassley, and 
Hagedorn. 

Staff present: Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert M. Bor. coun- 
sel; John E. Hogan, associate counsel; James E. Springfield, food 
programs specialist and budget officer; Thomas E. Adams. Jr., staff 
consultant; Glenda Temple, Sharon Armann. Ann Cole. Mary C. 
Jarratt, Wendell E. Primus. David L. Wright, Howard Yourman, 
staff assistants; James A. Culver, staff consultant. Subcommittee on 
Dairy and Poultry; Gerald Jorgensen. staff consultant. Subcommit- 
tee on Department Operations, Investigations and Oversight; Leon 
Geyer, staff consultant. Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and 
Consumer Relations; Alan Gray, staff consultant. Subcommittee on 
Livestock and Grains. 

The Chairman. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order. 

The committee meets for further consideration of the bill W.Ti. 13013 
to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1004 as amended. The clerk informs 
the chair that a quorum is present and this is the time se't by a pre- 
vious motion and unanimous consent request for final action on the 
bill and all amendments thereto. 

[The committee proceeded to complete action on the above legisla- 
tion before the following action took place.] 

Mr. Mathis. Mr. Chairman. T simply wanted to call to the attention 
of the chair the tobacco bill that T had that we needed to get unani- 
mous consent to report from the committee. 

T would like to inquire of (he chair when the proper time would 
be for me to bring that up. 

The Chairman. The gentleman will be recognized if there is no 
real time pressure in the meeting on the 24th unless he want- to offer 
it now. 

(159) 



160 



I do not want to advise the gentleman bul this would, perhaps, be a 
precarious time to offer it. He can offer it if he wishes, however. 

Mr. Mathis. Mr. Chairman, if we wail until the 24th, I would Bay 
very frankly that there is no point in trying to bring it up. 

The Chairman. All right. The gentleman is recognized. 

[The bill U.K. 15068 and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
report follow : ] 



161 



91m CONGRESS 
2d Session 



H. R. 1 5068 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

August 5, 1976 

Mr. Matiiis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Agriculture 



A BILL 

To provide for emergency allotment lease and transfer of 
tobacco allotments or quotas for 1976 in certain disaster 
areas in South Carolina, 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That section 316 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 

4 (7 U.S.C. 1314b) is amended by adding at the end thereof 

5 the following new subsection : 

6 " (i) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, 

7 when as a result of drought, flood, damage due to excessive 

8 rain, hail, wind, tornado, or other natural disaster, the 

9 Secretary determines (1) that one of the counties hereinafter 
10 listed has suffered a loss of 10 per centum or more in the 

I 



162 



1 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 

15 

16 
17 
18 
19 



number of acres of tobacco planted, and (2) that a lease 
of such tobacco allotment or quota will not impair the effec- 
tive operation of the tobacco marketing quota or price sup- 
port program, he may permit the owner and operator of any 
farm within Clarendon, Colleton, Darlington, Horry, Wil- 
liamsburg, Florence, and Marion Counties, South Carolina, 
and Cook, Berrien, Lanier, and Lowndes Counties, Georgia, 
which has suffered a loss of 10 per centum or more in the 
number of acres of tobacco planted of such crop to lease all 
or any part of such allotment or quota to any other owners 
or operators in the same county, or other counties within the 
same State, for use in such counties for the year 1976 on a 
farm or farms having a current tobacco allotment or quota 
of the same kind. In the case of a lease and transfer to an 
owner or operator in another county pursuant to this sub- 
section, the lease and transfer shall not be effective until a 
copy of the lease is filed with and determined by the county 
committee of the county to which the transfer is made to be 
in compliance with this subsection. ". 



163 



Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, D.C., August 19, 1976, 
Hon. Thomas S. Foley, 

Chairman* Committee on Agriculture, 
House of Representatives. 

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your request of August 
11 for «a report on II. R. 15068, a bill to provide for emergencT lease and 
transfer of tobacco allotments or quotas for 1976 in certain disaster 
areas in Georgia and South Carolina. 

The Department does not oppose passage of the bill. 

In August 1973, P.L. 93-80 authorized disaster transfers of 1973 flue- 
cured tobacco allotments and quotas for specified counties in Georgia 
and South Carolina. Similar legislation was enacted in October 1974, 
for specified counties in North Carolina. In light of this experience, it 
would appear more appropriate to enact legislation authorizing cross- 
county transfers under specified disaster conditions, if disaster condi- 
tions are determined to be necessary, and not specify counties, States 
and crop years. 

Although not tied to disaster conditions, S. 700, which is presently 
before the Subcommittee on Tobacco of the House Committee on Agri- 
culture, would substantially achieve this result if it were amended to 
apply to all States and the referendum requirement were deleted. AVe 
believe this would be a better solution to this problem. 

As the aforementioned enacted legislation has been interpreted, the 
language in H.R. 15068 referring to "a loss of 10 per centum or more 
in the number of acres of tobacco planted" would also be interpreted to 

mean "a loss of 10 percent of the acres of tobacco planted or expected 
production from the planted acreage". 

The enactment of this bill will require only minimal, if any, addi- 
tional expenditures. 

The quality of the environment will not be affected by the adoption 
of this proposal. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no ob- 
jection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the 
Administration's objectives. 
Sincerely, 

Richard L. Feltxer, Acting Secretary. 



164 

Mr. Mathis. The bill is of an emergency nature involving six 
counties, I believe, in our colleague Mr. Jenrette's district and one 

county in our colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Davis' district, and 
four counties in my district where they have had damage to the 

tobacco crop from inclement weather. 

This Is no new legislation. Legislation is on the hooks. We have 
passed this kind of legislation every year since I have been in tin 1 
Congress and there has never been any objection to it because it does 
not cost anything whatsoever. 

It simply allows these fanners to have the flexibility to lease 
tobacco from one farm to another across county lines. 

Mr. Rose. Would the gentleman yield j 

Mr. Mathis. I would be happy to yield to my friend from North 
Carolina. 

Mr. Rose. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. 

It is my understanding that the reason this legislation was intro- 
duced and is being brought before this committee is because that 
some of the farmers in the counties mentioned in this bill have suf- 
fered a disaster in terms of the weather and there is a need to transfer 
across county lines tobacco allotments away from where the disaster 
occurred into counties where it might be grown. 

ruder the present law, there is a prohibition against transferring 
allotments across county lines and this bill seeks to make an excep- 
tion for these counties, for this crop year, one time only. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. Mathis. The gentleman is absolutely correct. 

I would say further, Mr. Chairman, that the Department has been 
invited to provide their comments on the bill and they have no objec- 
tion to passing the bill. There is absolutely no cost involved. There 
will be no more tobacco produced because of this bill. 

It simply relieves the financial pressure from a large number of 
fnnneis in South Carolina and a few in Georgia. 

Mr. Wampler. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Mathis. I would be delighted to yield to my friend from 
Virginia. 

Mr. Wampler. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this bill is very 
worthy and because of the very nature of the circumstances that 
prompt its consideration, I would hope that it would receive a unani- 
mous vote in committee. 

Mr. Mathis. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chairman. Is there any objection to the unanimous consent 
request for the immediate consideration of the bill? 

| Xo response.] 

The Chairman. Tf not, it is so ordered. 

The gentleman from Georgia is recognized. 

Mr. Mathis. I move the bill be reported. 

The Chairman. The gentleman moves that the bill IT.R. 15068 
be reported to the House with a recommendation that it do pass. 

All those in favor signify by saying ayes. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

The Chairman. Opposed no? 

| One no.] 

The Chairman. The ayes have it and it is so ordered. 



165 

Before the Members leave, the clerk will record that (he quorum 
was present for the vote by which the food stamp hill was reported 
{Hid the vote by which the reconsideration was denied and that by 
which the hill ILK. 15068 was reported. 

Mr. Matiiis. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of t lie ( 'hair i f it would 
be proper that I ask this speaker to place this bill on the consent 
calendar? 

The Chairman. Is there any object ion to that procedure? 

[No response.] 

The Chairman. If not, a request will be made that it be placed on 
the consent calendar. 

Mr. Mathis. Thank yon, Mr. Chairman. 

[The committee proceeded to other business. ] 



ORIENTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF USDA EMPLOYEES 
IN FOREIGN ASSIGNMENTS 



THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee ox Department 

Operations, Investigations and Oversight 

of the Committee on Agriculture, 

Was king torn , D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:45 a.m., in room 1302, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. E de la Garza (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Foley (chairman of the full committee), 
Weaver, Breckinridge, Harkin, Richmond, and Grassier. 

Staff present: Fowler West, staff director; Robert M. Bor, counsel : 
John E. Hogan, associate counsel: William A. Imhoff, associate 
counsel; John M. Lindley, Nick Ashmore, and Glenda Temple, stall' 
assistants; James A. Culver, staff consultant. Subcommittee on Dairy 
and Poultry; Gerald Jorgensen, staff consultant, Subcommittee on De- 
partment Operations, Investigations and Oversight. 

Mr. de la Garza. The subcommittee will be in order. 

The next item is H.R. 11868. 

[The bill H.R, 11868 follows:] 

(167) 



168 



94th CONGRESS 
2d Session 



H.R. 11868 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Ff.rruary 11,1976 

Mr. i)i. i. \ Gabza (for himself and Mr. Foley) introduced the Following bill ; 
which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 



A BILL 

To amend section 602 of the Agricultural Act of 1954. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 tivcs of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That section 602 of the Agricultural Act of 1954, as 

4 amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new 

5 subsection as follows: 

6 " (f ) Appropriations available to the Secretary of 

7 Agriculture may be used to provide appropriate orienta- 

8 tion and language training to families of officers and em- 

9 ployees of the Department of Agriculture in anticipation 

10 of an assignment abroad of such officers and employees 

11 or while abroad pursuant to this Act or other authority: 

1 Provided, That the facilities of the Foreign Service Insti- 

2 tute or other Government facilities shall be used 

3 wherever practicable.". 



169 

*. 

Mr. de la Garza. If the members remember, there was testimony 
by the FAS that they have a need for instructing personnel assigned 
to foreign countries in the language of the foreign countries. At the 
time, the testimony also included the spouses ana/or members of the 
family that would accompany them. K provided for an amount of 
some $35,000 annually, if tnecnair remembers correctly. 

Mr. Harkin. Mr. ( Chairman ? 

Mr. de la Garza. Yes, Mr. Harkin? 

Mr. Harkin. I am not opposed to (his. obviously. 

I am just wondering, doesn't the Secretary of Agriculture have 
this kind of money and this kind of power without going through 
all the machinations of passing legislation to authorize him to do that ] 

I cannot imagine we are talking about a great deal of money. 

Mr. de la Garza. There is a question as to whether he has or has 
not. I think one of the problems here is that other departments — at 
least the State Department, to my knowledge — has similar authority 
by law, so that there would not be any question as to authority, if 
that would be the desire of the FAS. 

Mr. Bor. Air. Chairman, I talked recently with the people in the 
Department of Agriculture. They informed me that they were ad- 
vised by officials of the State Department that the State Depart- 
ment did not have authority to pay for the language training of 
dependents of officials of the Department of Agriculture. And. ap- 
parently., there is no authority in the laws of the Department of 
Agriculture that would likewise fund language training for de- 
pendents prior to the time the families go abroad for their foreign 
assignments. 

Mr. Hogan. That is the State Department's determination? 

Mr. Bor. Yes. 

Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman. I move the question. 

Mr. Grassley. I see that this bill reads families. Does that include 
small children, too ? Or is that meant to be just the wife of the for- 
eign employee? 

Mr. Bor. Mr. Grassley. when Mr. Hume testified before the sub- 
committee, he indicated that the purpose of this amendment was pri- 
marily to provide language training to spouses of people who were 
being sent abroad because the spouses had official functions when 
they were abroad on foreign assignment. They were providing rep- 
resentational services for the Department. 

Pie said there are occasions when you might have an officer assigned 
abroad whose older daughter would be providing the same type of 
representational service. It was indicated for that occasional situation 
that the USD A would like to have the authority to provide this type 
of language training, it was not the intent to provide language train- 
ing for the entire families or children who would not be serving as 
we might say a part of the official family providing representational 
services for the Department of Agriculture. 

Mr. Grassley. Let us suppose that there was. 
Mr. de la Garza. Would the gentleman like to offer an amend- 
ment making it spouse ? 

Mr. Grassley. Yes; I would so move to strike 1 the word "families" 
and put in ''spouses." 

Mr. de la Garza. Are there any objections? 



170 

I hear an objection. 

Mi. Grassley moves that the word families be changed to spouses. 

All in favor of Mr. (irasslcy's amendment, say aye. 

Mr. ( ii; ASSl El . I ask for a rollcall. 

Mr. de la ( Sarza. Mr. Grassley ask- for a rollcall. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

(The rollcall follows : I 
Ayes: Representative Grassley. 

Nays: Representatives Richmond, Harkin, Breckinridge, Weaver, de la Garza, 
Foley. 

Mr. de la Garza. The clerk will announce the result. 

The Clerk, One aye and six nays. 

Mi. de la Garza. One aye and six nays. 

The amendment is not adopted. 

Mr. Bor. Mr. Chairman 3 

Mr. de la Garza. Yes, counsel? 

Mr. Bor. There was expressed, at the last meeting, concern that the 
way in which the bill was drafted would give rise to the thought that 
it might he considered as hack-door spending since it states that any 
appropriations available to the Secretary may be used for this pur- 
pose, and would provide that any appropriations that currently are 
available to the Secretary may be used for this purpose. 

A suggestion has been made, therefore, to change the terminology 
at the outset so that this would be an authorization for appropria- 
tions. So it would read, starting out on line 6. instead of sayin<r "Ap- 
propriations available to the Secretary . . .", to say, instead, "The 
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to provide . . . et cetera." 

Mr. de la Garza. Also, there was a su<i<restion that, wherever pos- 
sible, counterpart funds be used if the training can be done outside of 
the continental limits of the United States. T do not know if that can 
be done under the present statutes or not. but the chair feels that 
probably it would be advisable to include. 

Mr. Folly. Mr. Chairman, T certainly understand the reason for your 
concern about back-door spending. If, however, the bill provides that 
any funds available to the Secretary can be used for lan^rua<re training 
in the absence of usin<r CCC moneys, we run into the problem that all 
funds available to the Secretary would probably be otherwise appropri- 
ated for the operations of the Department of Agriculture, earmarked 
for such other purposes as Public Law 480. As the Chair su^ests, it 
seems there is no reason that those counterpart funds should not be 
made available for this purpose. That is one of the specifically author- 
ized uses of counterpart funds within the terms of the agreements our 
Government has signed with those countries where such moneys are on 
deposit for the support of American missions abroad. 

As the chair knows, in India, for example, because of the new cur- 
rency, an enormous amount of rupees are available. Moreover, the 
amounts we are talking about here are not very <jreat. In the absence 
of using CCC funds, which are later reimbursed where there is a defi- 
ciency, the appropriation process would have to operate in order for 
those funds to be available to the Secretary. Public Law 480 is, of 
course, an exception. 

Mr. de la Garza. We are dealing with an amount that is not £oin<r 
to balance the budget or make the L.S. Xews & World Report, with 
$35,000 authorization. 






171 

Mr. Grasslky. Along the Line of Mr. Foley'.- reasoning, I would like 
to assume that, if this bill is going to pass, thai all of this I rainii 
going to be in the country where these people are Located. Obviously, 

you are not going to train some person in t his count ry to .-peak a foreign 
language. The laboratory for training in foreign language is the coun- 
try where they can use it. and have to use it every day. 

Mr. Foley. A number of Government employees, such a- State D< 
partment personnel, receive foreign language training here in Wash- 
ington at the Foreign Service Institute before assuming their new posts 
abroad. 

Mr. Grasslky. Is it anticipated that you will follow that same prac- 
tice for the spouse and family? Would they receive that training in 
this country, and would that training he better than that which they 
would receive in the country where they are going to be Living for a 
while ? 

Mr. Foley. I will stand corrected if someone know- differently, but I 
would anticipate that both training in this country and in the country 
of assignment would be available. 

I do not want to take the gentleman's time, but I would like to be 
recognized by the chair briefly. 

Mr. Grassley. I have made my point, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. de la Garza. I might inform the gentleman. I have been quite 
involved in this language training, and we have the bes( in the world. 
Many countries send here for training in language of another country. 
We had probably the most extensive training in Vietnamese here dur- 
ing the Vietnam conflict. I know it sounds good, but you have got to 
see the place. You have got to participate in it in order to know what 
a good job they do. 

Mr. Foley. I feel very strongly that the benefit- to be derived from 
investment in this particular program would prove greater than those 
from almost anything else we could do to enhance representation of 
the United States abroad. 

The United States traditionally lias not been a country where foreign 
languages are spoken widely. Those who are actually posted abroad 
and their families contribute significantly to the effectiveness of our 
representation in other countries. 

The gentleman from Texas has been a member of a number of dele- 
gations that have participated in interparliamentary unions or other- 
wise traveled to foreign countries. I can personally attest to the fact 
that his knowledge of langauges contributes greatly to his effectiveness 
in communicating with people. 

We have all recognized this ourselves in talking with foreigner- in 
this country who are able to speak English without relying on transla- 
tors. They are able to get their ideas across directly and to be immensely 
more effective. 

The United States spends a great deal of money each year to main- 
tain or enhance relations with other countries. I fail to understand 
why the minimal amount in question here should not be considered an 
excellent investment in the improved effectiveness of our representa- 
tion and policies abroad. 

If only some of the spouses or children given language training 
under this bill learn another language well, it is our country who bene- 
fits, whether they go into foreign service, Government service, or the 



172 

private sector. ( hir ability to operate in American business abroad and 
to compete with other countries is dependent in large part on the corps 
of American business executive's who have the capacity to speak the 
languages of other countries. 

I do not want to take up any more time, hut I really do believe we 
ought to improve our ability to communicate abroad. 

Mr. Weaver. Mr. Chairman ! 

Mr. de la Garza. Mi-. Weaver. 

Mr. Weaver. I just wanted to ask the chair a question. 

Does the language in U.K. 11868 as written now allow counterpart 
funds to be used in this program ( 

Mr. Bor. It does not prohibit the use of counterpart funds from 
being used. Dollar appropriations would be authorized and they could 
l>e used for the purpose of purchasing counterpart funds which are 
available overseas. 

Mr. Weaver. Purchasing from our own Government ? 

Mr. Bor. That is right. 

I was advised by USDA that there are only four countries at the 
present time which are called excess foreign currency countries. Those 
countries are India, Pakistan, Egypt, and there is one other country 
which I forget at the moment. 

All the other areas are no longer in that category, so, if we wanted 
to make use of foreign currencies overseas, we would have to buy them 
with dollars. 

Mr. Weaver. From a Government agency? 

Mr. Bor. From a Government agency, or from the 

Air. Weaver. A United States Government agency? In other words, 
it is not an additional 

Mr. Bor. That is right. 

Mr. Weaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hogan. Is that true of the Fulbright program in the purchase 
of those funds in other countries to sustain the Fulbright program! 

Mr. Bor. If my memory is correct, they need appropriations to 
acquire the currencies to fund the Fulbright program. That is right. 

Most of the programs that are funded under Public Law 480, and 
the Fulbright program is one of those, has a requirement that there- 
be appropriations before the foreign currencies may be used. 

Mr. de ea Garza. The Chair has one request of the committee, and 
that is, in lieu of the amendment of annual authorization that we pro- 
vide for an annual report to committees of the Agriculture of the 
House and Senate by the FASS to the expenditure of the funds. 
Would there be any objection to that I 

If there is no objection, then counsel will indicate at the end the 
proviso that a report on the expenditure of the funds be made to the 
committees at the end of the fiscal year or thereabouts. 

Mr. Bor. Mr. Chairman, might I suggest that the language of the 
bill might start, "Effective October 1, 1970, the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture is authorized to provide . . . thus and so"? 

This avoids any problem with the Budget Act. 

There is another section of the act which this amends which pro- 
vides an authorization for appropriations for all activities that are 
carried out under title 6 of the Agricultural Act of 19,54. That sec- 
tion would provide the funding authorization for this program. So 



173 

there would not be any need to specifically set out that there is ant hor- 
ized to be appropriated such sums as might be necessary. 

Then, at the end of this page 2, we would include the requirement 
of a report that you have just suggested. 

Mr. de la Garza. Very well. 

Without objection, counsel is instructed to do so. 

Mr. Richmond. I move the question. 

Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Richmond moves that we pass the bill and 
recommend it to the full committee that it do pass with the suggi 
amendments. 

The clerk will call t he roll. 

(The rollcall follows : i 

Ayes: Representatives Richmond, Harkin, Breckinridge, Weaver, Foley, and 
de la Garza. 

Nays : Representative Gassley. 

The Clerk. Six ayes and one nay. 

Mr. de la Garza. There being six ayes and one nay. the hill is re- 
ported as amended to the full committee. 
The committee will stand adjourned. 
[Whereupon, at 9:50 a.m., the committee adjourned.] 



77-139 O - 77 - 12 



ORIENTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF USDA EMPLOYEES 
IX FOREIGN ASSIGNMENTS 



TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman ) 
presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Yigorito. Jones of 
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee. Bergland, Breckinridge, Rich- 
mond, Nolan, Weaver, Baldus, Krebs, Hightower. Bedell. McHugh, 
English, Fithian, Wampler, Sebelius, Thone, Symms. Johnson, Madi- 
gan. Heckler, Jeffords, Kelly, Grassley Hagedorn and Moore. 

Staff present: Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert M. Bor and 
Hyde H. Murray, counsels: William Imhof and John Hogan, 
associate counsels; Glenda Temple, John Lindley. and Susan Bell, 
staff assistants; Gene Moos, staff analyst; James Springfield, food 
programs specialist and budget officer; Louis Easley, press assistant; 
James Culver and George Dunsmore, staff consultants. Subcommittee 
on Dairy and Poultry; Weldon Barton and Leon Geyer, staff consult- 
ants. Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and Consumer Relation-: 
Leighton Lang, staff consultant. Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice; 
Alan Gray, staff consultant. Subcommittee on Livestock and Grain-: 
Gerald Jorgensen, staff consultant. Subcommittee on Department 
Operations, Investigations and Oversight. 

The Chairman. The next matter to come before the committee is 
H.R. 11868 providing for the orientation of dependents of USDA 
employees having foreign assignments. 

It is reported by the Subcommittee on Departmental Operations and 
Investigations and Oversight. 

Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for 
amendment at any point. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. de la Garza. 

Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Chairman, this bill is also by the request of 
the Agency. 

The Foreign Agricultural Service has a need for training person- 
nel — and in this case, spouses, or the official families of the official 
involved, mostly spouses. 

When they serve abroad, they need to be given some training in the 
language of the country wherein thev will be serving. 

This had been done through the Food Service Institute, which is 
handled by the State Department in cooperative agreement with th 
Department of Agriculture— FAS— and the State Department. 

(175) 



176 

Because of a GAO decision 3 it was found — or the request was made — 
that tin- State Department be reimbursed by all of the agencies avail- 
ing themselves of that service. It was found that the I'SDA did not 
have Legislative authority to reimburse the State Department for those 
services. 

Hence, there is the need for this legislation. That is what the bill 
dors. It gives the Department of Agriculture the authorization to use 
funds for these purposes. 

The requested amount of funds by the Department is for $35,000 
annually. This is for an agriculture attache 4 who is going to hi' as- 
signed, for example, to India. There is a need for him, for example, to 
he — if not fluent — at least have a passing knowledge of the language 
where he is going to be serving. 

If you will pardon a personal comment, it is very important that 
they understand and he able to have some command of the language. 

That is what this legislation does. It gives the authorization to the 
Secretary of Agriculture to expend funds for this purpose. 

I understand the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. Wampler, has an 
amendment 

Therefore, if there are no questions, I yield back the balance of my 
time. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions of the gentleman from 
Texas? 

Mr. Grassley. I would like to ask Mr. de la Garza this question. 

In our testimony we had on March '29 from David Hume, he said on 
page 2: "This FSI training was done on a space-available basis with- 
out cost to the Department." 

And since we took this up in the subcommittee, I found this out. 

Were you aware of the fact that based on the testimony when we 
were enacting this bill, we thought that all the training which had been 
done to this point had been done without cost? In fact in 11)74 the De- 
partment paid FSI SC4.-216? In fiscal year 1975, $71,000? This was for 
94 agriculture employees and 114 agriculture employees respectively. 

Did we move forward under the assumption that this was actually 
without cost and that it was necessary for us to pass this bill so that 
it could be done and could be paid for? 

If we acted that way, then according to this information that I have 
from the State Department, from Mr. Eagleburger, in a letter dated 
May 10, 1976. he says that they have been paid for this language 
training. 

Mr. DE la Garza. The GAO report found that the Department had 
no authorization to reimburse. 

From the reading of the letter written from the State Depart- 
ment which, by the way 

"It is not correct that the Foreign Service Institute has refused to 
give language training either to employees of the Department of Agri- 
culture expecting overseas assignments or to their dependents. There 
is, however, a particular problem with respect to the training of 
dependents." 

That's on page 1. 

Then it goes on to say : 

"In the interim, however. th( 4 Institute has agreed to provide train- 
ing to dependents on a space-available basis, pursuant to individual 



177 

requests from USDA for a waiver of the reimbursement requirement, 

in each case, with the understanding thai LJSDA would continue to 
seek the authority." 

That is the authority you are requesting in this legislation. Thai is 
the letter the gentleman received, if you read it. 

Mr. Grasslet. My only question is thai we were assuming thai this 
was without cost to t he I >epartment. 

Mr. de la Garza. No, we never assumed that. 

When the Department was confronted thai they had no authoriza- 
tion to pay, that has been understood all along. 

Mr. Grasslet. Mr. Humes' testimony 

Mr. de la Garza. That's the only purpose of the bill — -that is, to t 
the authorization to pay. 

This has never been aiven to the Department without reimbursement. 

The need for the authorization to reimburse was so that they could 
continue paying, legally, I guess you mi^ht say. 

Mr. Grasslet. The other point that we were laboring under was that 
this was only £oino- to cost $35,000. The Department has already paid 
$64,000 one year and $71,000 another. 

How is it presumed that they're £oin<r to <ret by on $35,000? 

Mr. de la Garza. That is what they asked for. 

That is what we're going to give them authorization for. 

The Chairman. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. 

Mr. Wampler? 

Mr. Wampler. T have an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
which I would like to offer at this time. Perhaps this would answer 
some of the questions raised by the orentleman from Iowa. 

It is not my purpose to cut off debate, bur -imply to offer the amend- 
ment in the nature of a substitute at this time. 

I think copies of the amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
beino; distributed by the clerk. 

Therefore, I would ask unanimous consent that it be considered as 
read. 

The Citairmax. Without objection, the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wampler. will 
be inserted in the record at this point. 

[The amendment follows:] 

H.R. 11868 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

offered by mr. wampler 

Strike everything after the enacting clause and substitute the following : 
"That section 602 of the Agricultural Act of If)."!, as amended, la amended by 
adding at the end thereof a new subsection as follows: 

"'(/) Effective October 1. 1976, the Secretary of Agriculture is authoriz< 
provide appropriate orientation and language training to spouses of officers and 
employees of the Department of Agriculture in anticipation of an assignment 
abroad of such officers and employees or while abroad pursuant to this A 
other authority: Provided, That the facilities of the Foreign Service Institute 
or other Government facilities shall be used wherever practicable, and the 8 
tary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, utilize foreign current 
ated under Title I of Public Law 83 180 t.» carry oul tin- purposes of this 
section in the foreign nations to which such officers, employees and s] 
assigned. There are hereby authorized bo be appropriated such sums, nor 



178 

185,000 annually, tor each of the three fiscal yean beginning with the fiscal 
year commencing October l. 1876. The Secretary Email submit to the House 
Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Form- 
atter the end of each fiscal year a detailed repoii showing activities car> 

riftl out under authority of this subsection during such fiscal year.' " 

The title is amended to read: "A bill to authorise orientation and language 
training tor spouses ..f certain officers and employees "f the Department of 
Agriculture.* 1 

Mr. Wampler. I will be happy to explain it. 

In the hill before us. the subcommittee version authorizes the Sec- 
retary of Agriculture to send family members of overseas USDA em- 
ployees to language schools and requires annual reports to Congress. 

Very briefly, what the amendment in the nature of a substitute — 
which I have just offered — purports to do is this. 

It would place a (35,000 annual ceiling on this program. 

It would authorize the use of foreign currenev where practical 
would limit educational l>encfits to spouses of USDA personnel. It 
would also require an annual report. 

Those are the basic differences between what the substitute does and 
what the subcommittee purports to do. 

Mr. Kelly. The subcommittee bill does not limit the training just 
to spouses. Ts that correct ( 

Mr. Wampler. That is correct. It would be dependents, and this 
would l>e for spouses only. 

Therefore, it is limiting in that scope and also in the amounts with 
the $35,000 ceiling, plus the use of foreign currencies where possible. 

This is an additional means of financing it. 

Mr. Bedell. Is the $35,000 agreeable to the Department of Agricul- 
ture? 

Mr. Wampler. This is language suggested by the Department and, 
as I understand it, is agreeable. 

Mr. Bedell. My question goes back to the gentleman from Iowa. 

We have spent much more than that already, and I wonder why 
they think they can ^et by with $35,000? 

Mr. Wampler, This is restricted only to spouses rather than other 
dependents. 

Also, the use of foreign currency would help keep the cost down. 
This puts an absolute limit of $35,000. I assume it would include for- 
eign currencies. 

Mr. Bedell. Thank you. 

Mr. Wampler. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. de LA Garza. Mr. Chairman, I have some suggested changes to 
the amendment of the gentleman. 

Perhaps if I would suggest the changes, then I could ask unanimous 
consent to put them in. 

Instead of saying: "The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
practical, utilize foreign currencies." we can say the Secretary "may" 
utilize foreign currencies generated, and so on. 

This would give the Secretary flexible authority to utilize foreign 
currencies. 

Also, the gentleman's amendment has an annual authorization for 
3 year-. 

In view of the amount of only $35,000, I did not offer my amend- 
ment of annual authorization but rather offered an annual reporting 
procedure which the gentleman's amendment has. 



179 

Therefore, I would respectfully suggest that, in view of the amount, 
that we not limit it to 3 years, inasmuch as the amounl would be 
limited and the authorization of $35,000; and we have a proviso 
wherein they report to both committees after each fiscal year about 

how the money was expended. 

^ I would think that for the amount it would suffice Tor authoriza- 
tion — annual authorization— unless you need to change the figure for 
some reason. 

Mr. Wampler. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the inclusion 
of those changes. 

Whether it would be proper to try to amend it by unanimous consent 
or by an amendment, I don't know. 

The Chairman. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to 
reform the substitute ? 

Mr. Wampler. I so move. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Virginia asks unanimous 
consent to reform the substitute, as suggested by the gentleman from 
Texas. 

Is there objection ? 

Hearing none, so ordered. 

Is there further discussion ? 

Does counsel have something to say ? 

Mr. Bor. I merely wish to raise the question as to what is the intent 
of the originator of the amendment — that is. whether it was intended 
to require the report to be made not later than 90 days after the end 
of the fiscal year so that the report would be available at the time that 
the budget is being considered by the committee? 

Mr. Wampler. That would be consistent, 

Mr. Bor. The subcommittee amendment had language which re- 
quired the report to be submitted not later than 90 days after the end 
of the fiscal year. 

Mr. Wampler. T have no objection, even though I don't think the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute addresses that specific 
requirement. 

The Chairman. The gentleman asks additional unanimous consent 
to make the report due within 90 days after the conclusion of the 
fiscal year. 

Is there any objection ? 

Hearing none, so ordered. 

Mr. Titoxe. I hesitate to brin<? this up, but it bothers me. 

Maybe the gentleman from Virginia can enlighten me. 

As I understand the first part of the substitute, these funds are 
given "in anticipation of an assignment abroad." 

How can you use Public Law 480 funds if the course is given in 
anticipation of those funds ? 

The Chairman. It reads. "In anticipation or while abroad." 

Mr. Thone. You're rigrht. Excuse me. 

The Chairman. If there is no further discussion, the question 
arises on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia. 

All in favor say aye. 

Onposed ? 

The aves appear to have it. 

The aves have it. and the substitute is agreed to. 



L80 

A iv there other amendments 1 

Mr. de i. a ( Jak/a. I mow passage of the bill. 

The ( 'haikman. The gentleman from Texas. Mr. de la Garza, mow- 
that the bill U.K. ll^'*> s . as amended by the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute, be reported to the House with a recommendation that 
it be passed. 

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

( Apposed ! 

The aye- have it. and the motion is agreed to. 

Mr. Grassley. fs there any problem with filing a dissenting view { 
I- that automat ic \ 

The Chairman. Unless otherwise agreed to by unanimous consent, 
ail Members haw 3 calendar days to extend any supplemental, addi- 
t lonal, or dissenting views. 

Mr. de i. \ Garza. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
usual instructions be given to counsel with reference to technical 
changes. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the staff will be authorized to 
make purely grammatical, technical, and clerical corrections reflect- 
ing I he decision made by the committee. 

The record will show that a quorum is present. 

| The committee proceeded to other. business.] 



FARMER-TO-CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING ACT 

OF 1976 



THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing 

and Consumer Relations ofi he 

( Jommitteeon Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 
The subcommittee met at 10 :35 a.m.. pursuant to notice, in room 
1301. Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joseph P. Vigorito 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives McHugh, Harkin. Richmond, D'Amours, 
and Brown. 

Also present: Hyde H. Murray, counsel; Weldon Barton and I. 
Greyer, staff consultants. Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and 
Consumer Relations. 

Mr. Vigorito. The Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and I 
sinner Relations is now in session. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to mark up H.R. 7488. the 
Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing bill. 

[The bill H.R. 7488 and the report of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture follow :] 

(181) 



L82 



Oh ii CONGRESS 

Iffl Si ssion 



H. R. 7488 



IX THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

May 22, 1976 

Mr. ViGORiTO (for himself, 'Sir. Bergland, Mr. Brown of California. Mr. 
D'Amours, Mr. English, Mr. Fithian, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Jenrf/i m. Mr. 
Peyser, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Rose, and Mr. Weaver) introduced the fol- 
lowing bill: which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 



A BILL 

To encourage the direct marketing of agricultural commodities 
from farmers to consumers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representee 

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembhd, 

3 SHORT TITLE 

4 SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Farmer-to- 

5 Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1975". 

6 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE 

7 SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds that— 

8 ( 1 ) direct sales from farmers to consumers of fresh 

9 or processed farm produce and commodities can improve 
10 the markets of and financial returns to farmers, assist 



183 

1 small-scale fanners in becoming economically viable, 

2 and improve the quality and reduce the cost of foods to 

3 consumers ; 

4 (2) because of increased transportation and fuel 

5 costs, consumer preferences for fresh or natural foods 
G increased prices of food marketed through conventional 

7 retailing channels, and other reasons, there is an en- 

8 hanced interest among farmers and consumers for direct 

9 farmer-to-consumer marketing channels ; 

10 (3) there is a need to provide information, tecli- 

11 nical assistance, and other assistance to individuals and 

12 groups undertaking the establishment and operation of 

13 traditional methods of direct marketing from fanners t<» 

14 consumers ; and 

15 (4) there is a need for planning, incentives, and 
10 other assistance to develop innovative commercial ar- 

17 rangements that can facilitate, on a continuing basis, the 

18 interface of farmers as sellers and consumers as buyers 
If) tor their mutual benefit. 

20 (b) It is the purpose of this Act to foster and promote, 

21 through appropriate means and on an economically sustain- 

22 able basis, the development and expansion of both tradition;]] 

23 and innovative approaches to direct marketing of agricultural 

24 commodities from farmers to consumers. To accomplish this 

25 objective, the Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter referred 



1 to as the "Secretary") shall initiate and coordinate a pro- 

2 gram, which includes (he activities described in sections 4 

3 through ~. designed to facilitate direct marketing from fann- 
\ ers to consumers for the mutual benefit of consumers and 
g farmers. 

( ; DEFINITION 

7 Si.r. :). For purposes of this Act, the term "direct 

^ marketing from farmers to consumers" shall mean the mar- 

9 keting of agricultural commodities at any marketplace (in- 

10 eluding, hut not limited to, roadside stands, city markets, 

H and vehicles used for house-to-house marketing of agricul- 

12 tural commodities) established and maintained for the pur- 

13 pose of enabling fanners to sell (either individually or 

14 through a farmers' organization directly representing the 

15 farmers who produced the commodities being sold) their 
1G agricultural commodities directly to individual consumers, 

17 or organizations representing consumers, in a manner cal- 

18 culated to lower the cost or increase the quality of food to 

19 such consumers while providing increased financial returns 

20 to the farmers. 

21 SURVEY 

22 Sec. 4. The Secretary shall provide, through the Eco- 
l>;j nomic Research Service of the United States Department 

24 of Agriculture, or whatever agency or agencies the Secretary 

25 considers appropriate, a continuing survey of existing metk- 



185 

1 ods of direct marketing from farmers to consumers in each 

2 State. The initial survey, which shall be completed no later 

3 than two years following the date of enactment of this Act, 

4 shall include the number and types of such marketing meth- 

5 ods in existence, the volume of business conducted through 

6 each such marketing method, and the impact of such mar- 

7 keting methods upon financial returns to farmers (includ- 

8 ing their impact upon improving the economic viability of 

9 smaller farmers) and food costs to consumers. This survey 

10 shall be updated every five years. 

11 TRADITIONAL METHODS OF DIRECT MARKETING FROM 

12 FARMERS TO CONSUMERS 

13 Sec. 5. In order to foster and promote the establishment 

14 and operation of traditional methods of direct marketing 

15 from farmers to consumers, the Secretary shall provide that, 
1G the Extension "Service of the United States Department of 

17 Agriculture conduct and facilitate activities designed to fos- 

18 ter direct marketing from farmers to consumers, including — 

19 (1) the designation of a State extension marketing 

20 specialist in each State as responsible, on a continuing 

21 basis, for the purpose of initiating, encouraging, or coor- 

22 dinating activities related to methods of direct marketing 

23 from farmers to consumers or to the development of such 

24 methods within the State; 

25 (2) the sponsorship of regional and statewide con- 



180 

1 ferencea within each Slate which are designed to facili- 

2 tate the sharing of information (among farm producers, 

3 consumers, and other interested persons or groups) con- 
-4 cerning the establishment and operation of direct mar- 
5 keting from farmers to consumers ; 

ii (3) cooperation and coordination with the State 

7 department of agriculture, the land-grant college or uni- 
versity, and the county agricultural agents of each 

9 State for the purposes of conducting studies of direct 

10 marketing from farmers to consumers within the State, 

11 compiling the relevant laws and regulations relevant to 

12 the conduct of the various methods of such direct mar- 

13 keting within the State, formulating drafts of enabling 
U legislation needed to facilitate such direct marketing, 

15 determining feasible locations for additional facilities for 

16 such direct marketing, and preparing and disseminating 
IT through appropriate means (including mass communica- 

18 tion media and conferences as described in paragraph 

19 (2) of this section) practical information on the estab- 

20 lishment and operation of such direct marketing; and 
2i (4) the providing of technical assistance (by State 

22 extension specialists, county agricultural agents, or 

23 others) for the purpose of assisting interested individuals 

24 or groups in the establishment of arrangements for direct 

25 marketing from farmers to consumers. 



187 

1 INNOVATIVE METHODS OF DIRECT MARKETING FROM 

2 FARMERS TO CONSUMERS 

3 Sec. 6. (a) The purpose of this section is to foster the 

4 development of innovative fanner-to-consumer marketing 

5 arrangements and networks designed to encourage the inter- 

6 face of farmers and consumers, including organized farmers 

7 and consumers, on a sustainable basis, for the purpose of 

8 facilitating direct marketing from farmers to consumers. 

9 (b) To achieve the purpose of this section, the Secre- 

10 tary shall foster activities including, but not limited to, the 

11 establishment of — 

12 ( 1 ) bona fide cooperative enterprises, for the bene- 

13 fit of farmers and consumers, which are designed to 

14 enhance a sense of identification, participation, and an 

15 economic stake in the enterprise on the part of in- 

16 dividual farmers and consumers ; 

17 (2) arrangements for organizations of farmers and 

18 consumers, acting jointly or otherwise, to contract with 

19 processors for the preparation of farm commodities 

20 which require processing prior to their sale directly 

21 from farmers to consumers ; 

22 (3) methods and procedures to facilitate the inter- 

23 face of organized farmers and consumers (including 

24 food buying organizations), on an economically stable 

25 and routine basis, for the purpose of providing for the 



188 

1 direct sale of farm commodities to consumers; such 

2 methods and procedures may include the following: 

3 joint planning between farmers, labor unions, and other 

4 consumer groups; contractual arrangements between 
.-> farmer and consumer groups; joint ownership of physi- 

6 caJ facilities used in the direct marketing from farmers 

7 to consumers; and single corporate organizations with 

8 joint representation of fanners and consumers on the 

9 policymaking bodies of such organizations; and 

10 (4) methods of cooperation among farmers in- 

11 volved in direct marketing of agricultural commodities 

12 to consumers within a State or across State boundaries, 

13 including the development of — 

14 (A) facilities at which farmers may pool their 

15 agricultural commodities for the purpose of having 

16 them sold directly to consumers ; 

17 (B) methods for moving agricultural coinmodi- 

18 ties from one marketing area to another for the 

19 purpose of affording greater balance of supply and 

20 demand; and 

21 (C) methods whereby marketplaces engaged 

22 in direct marketing from farmers to consumers may 

23 legally associate with one another for the purpose 

24 of developing a common label by which they can 

25 market their produce, and for other purposes. 



189 

1 (c) Within three years' of the date of enactment of this 

2 Act, the Secretary shall establish and maintain, under the 

3 auspices of the Farmer Cooperative Service of the United 

4 States Department of Agriculture, at least five distinctively 

5 different projects involving the formation of innovative metli- 

6 ods of direct marketing from fanners to consumers. These 

7 projects shall be established in different regions of the United 

8 States and shall be concerned with different economic and 

9 social situations. In carrying out such projects, the Admin- 

10 istrator of the Fanner Cooperative Service — 

11 (1) shall consult and cooperate with the Bank for 

12 Cooperatives, the Extension Service of the United States 

13 Department of Agriculture, State departments of agri- 

14 culture, the United States Department of Health, Edu- 

15 cation, and Welfare, and any Federal agency hereafter 

16 established wnich is charged with the promotion of con- 

17 sumer interests within the Government; and 

18 (2) is authorized, for the purpose of administering 

19 projects developed under this section, to enter into con- 

20 tracts with, and make grants to, public or private non- 
21 profit agencies or organizations, agencies of a State gov- 

22 eminent or a political subdivision of a State, or a com- 

23 bination of such political subdivisions; the Administrator 

24 is authorized to prescribe and amend regulations which 



190 

1 are necessary to administer effectively such contract! 

2 and grants. 

3 AN.M'AL REPORT 

4 BBC. 7. The Secretary- shall periodically review trie ac- 

5 tivities carried out under sections 4, 5, and 6 of this Act and 

6 shall report to the Committee on Agriculture, United States 

7 Howe of Representatives, and the Committee on Agricul- 

8 tare and Forestry, United States Senate, within one year 

9 of the date of enactment of this Act, and annually there- 
in after, with respect to the effectiveness of this Act. The Sec- 

11 retary shall include in such report at least a State-by-Srate 

12 summary of the results of the survey conducted under section 

13 4 of this Act. a summary of the activities and aooomplish- 

14 ments of the Extension Service in the development of direct 

15 marketing from farmers to consumers during the previous 

16 year, and a description of activities carried out by the Secre- 
1 < tary during the previous year to develop innovative farmer- 
1S to-oonsumer cooperative marketing arrangements (including 

19 the status of projects under contract with the Farmer Coop- 

20 era rive Service) . 

21 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

22 Sec. 8. (a) For purposes of carrying out the provisions 

23 of sections 4 and 7, there are authorized to be appropriated 

24 such sums as are necessarv. 



191 

1 (b) For purposes of carrying out the provisions of 

2 section 5, there is authorized to be appropriated $1,500,000 

3 for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1976, Septein- 

4 ber 30, 1977, and September 30, 1978. 

5 (c) For purposes of carrying out the provisions of 

6 section 6, there is authorized to be appropriated §1,000,000 

7 for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1970, Sep- 

8 tember 30, 1977, and September 30, 1978. 



192 



Department of Agriculture, 

Office of tiie Secretary, 
Washington, D.C., August 28, 1975. 
Hon. Thomas S. Foley, 

Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, 
Long worth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 
Deak Mr. Chairman: This is in reply to your request of May 23, 
1975, for a report on II. R. 7488, a bill "To encourage the direct mar- 
keting of agricultural commodities from farmers to consumers." 
This Department recommends that the bill not be enacted. 
1 I.K. 748S provides for substantially increased research and technical 
assistance by agencies of the Department of Agriculture. In its intent 
to foster arrangements for the marketing of fresh and processed farm 
products direct from farmers to consumers, the bill has substantial 
merit. However, the Department of Agriculture already possesses 
sufficient legislative authority under the Capper- Volstead and other 
acts to undertake all the actions outlined in the proposed legislation. 
From this perspective, then, the Bill is unnecessary. 

More importantly, the Department cannot support this bill because 
of the substantial new Federal spending it would require in fiscal year 
197G and succeeding years. If larger budget deficits are to be avoided 
now and in the future, every agency, including the Department of 
Agriculture, must exercise extreme fiscal restraint. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no ob- 
jection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the 
Administrations program. 
Sincerely, 

Richard A. Ashworth, 

Deputy Under Secretary. 



193 

Mr. Vigorito. The subcommittee held hearings on this bill 
July 23, 1975, both morning and afternoon. The bill received rather 
general support from both the farm and consumer organizations that 
testified on this bill. 

I personally think that the bill is sound and workable and I hope 
that we could complete action on it this morning and send it to the 
full committee. 

The bill is open to discussion and amendments. The Chair recognizes 
the gentleman from California, Mr. Brown. 

Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As a result of some of the comments which have been received from 
certain sources, I want to offer an amendment to section 5 which I 
will distribute at this time. 

The amendment is really fairly simple. The language of the bill 
at present provides for a program to be carried out in every State 
supported by the Department of Agriculture to the State extension 
service. 

The amendment recognizes the problems that exist in certain States 
with regard to lack of personnel, and so forth, and the need to en- 
courage State Departments of Agriculture to participate in this. This 
amendment modifies section 5 slightly to increase its flexibility to 
include the use of the State Departments of Agriculture in carrying 
out this program. The intent, of course, is that in this way we look at 
the better coverage of all States, more active participation from the 
State agencies, and therefore, a more effective program. 

I think that this would generally make the bill more acceptable 
to everybody concerned. 

Mr. Vigorito. I think the amendment is a good amendment. 

I think the individual State Departments of Agriculture should be 
considered in this. 

Are there any other comments ? 

Mr. Richmond. I move the question, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Vigorito. The question has been moved to accept the amend- 
ment from the gentleman from California, Mr. Brown. 

Will all those in favor say aye : all those opposed say nay. 

Xot hearing any nays, the ayes have it. The amendment is approved. 

Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of minor more or less 
technical amendments that I would like to offer on behalf of 
Mr. D' Amours to pages 3 and 4 of the bill. 

Mr. Vigorito. There are two amendments there? 

Mr. Browx. Yes; I would like to read them. 

Mr. Vigorito. You wish to offer them en bloc ? 

Mr. Browx. Yes. I would like to offer the two of them en bloc. 

On page 3 — and again, I think we have copies of these — line 18 
where its says, "in a manner calculated to lower the cost or increase 
the quality,'' the amendment would change the or to and. So that 
we want to lower the cost and increase the quality to the consumers. 

Then, on page 4, line 3 where it stipulates a period of 2 years for 
the survey, which is required by the act. this would change tlie 2 years 
to 1 year. This has been checked with the Department and other re- 
liable sources. The indication is that 1 year is more than adequate 
time to complete the survey that is required here. 

I move the adoption of these two amendments. 



194 

Mr. ViooRim It has been moved that the two amendments — purely 
technical — be adopted. The Chair finds no objection to these amend- 
ments. 

All those in favor of the two amendments say aye; all those op- 
posed say nay. 

Not hearing any nays, the ayes have it. The two amendments are 
agreed. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Richmond. 

Mr. Richmond. Thank yon. Mr. Vigorko. I have an amendment 
which I would like to offer at this time. 

This amendment adds food quality to subjects being surveyed by 
the USDA in their animal survey of direct marketing operations. 

On page 3 and 4. in section 4 of the hill, the USDA's Economic 
Research Service nmst make "continuing survey of existing methods 
of direct marketing from farmers to consumers." The survey includes 
a number of subject areas to he measured, hut Leaves out one very im- 
portant area. 

The surveys do not include any measurement or analysis of food 
quality as affected by direct marketing operations. Improvement in 
food quality is, I believe, one of the most important advantages of 
direct marketing operations. Food quality, in most cases, is tremen- 
dously improved with the availability of fresh produce, meats, and 
other product-. 

This improved food quality is one of the reasons why direct market- 
ing operations must be encouraged. They are a means of improving 
food quality to consumers. It may be that the inclusion of the words 
"food quality" is an oversight in the original drafting of this legisla- 
tion because it certainly is an important measurement that will help 
determine the success of this legislation. Indeed, we need to have ac- 
curate measurements of changes in food quality to help analyze the 
effects of this bill being enacted into law. 

Mr. Vigorito. I agree very much with Mr. Richmond. One of the 
purposes of the direct farmer-to-consumer approach is that it would 
seek to improve food quality. 

With our long distance transportation and serveral steps between 
the farmer and the 1 consumer, the food quality today is not as good 
as it u>ed to be. 

I am in favor of the amendment. 

Any other questions ? . 

It has been moved that the first amendment by Mr. Richmond be 
accepted. 

All those in favor say aye; all those opposed say nay. 

The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed. 

Mr. Richmond. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

With your permission I would like to offer two other amendments 
en block since they both contain the same language, but apply to two 
different sections of the bill. 

Mr. Yiookito. Would you read the two amendments, please? 

Mr. Richmond. Y s. 

The first amendment is as follows: On page 4. line 13. insert the 
letter "(a)" immediately before the word "In." On page :>. after lino 
25, insert the words: "In the implementation of this section, the 
Secretary shall take into account consumer preferences and needs 



195 

which may bear upon the establishment and operation of arrange- 
ments for direct marketing from farmer- to consumers." 

The second amendment contain identical Language, and will appeal' 
as a new subsection "(d)". on page 9, immediately after line 2. 

Sections 5 and 6 of this hill provide for the ('SI)AV assistance in 
developing existing methods of direct marketing and for developing 
innovative methods of direct marketing. 

The intent of these sections is excellent, but T feel we need to define 
a little more clearly the effect of the USDA's involvement on con- 
sumers and their desires. I think it is important that we take into ac- 
count consumer preference 1 .- and needs which may bear upon the 
establishment and operation of direct marketing arrangements. This 
is what these two amendments do. 

Consumers must be encouraged to cooperate with the CJSDA and 
with the farmers. 1 believe these amendments will help provide a solid 
framework for this to take place. 

We must recognize different cultural patterns among consumers, 
different consumption patterns, and different preferences consumer- 
have for direct marketing operations. 

Tn some places consumers may want store front operation.-: in some 
places they may want outdoor supermarkets; and some other areas, 
they may want their direct marketing operations operated from 
the back of a truck. To encourage maximum participation from con- 
sumers and make direct marketing operations most effective, we must 
be aware of consumer preferences and needs in different areas and 
different cultural settings. 

In my own district, Mr. Chairman, where I have a large black 
population, a large Hispanic population, and a large Orthodox Jewish 
population, each one of them, while most anxious for farmers' markets, 
have very, very specific cultural and dietary needs. T think we need 
to take these differences into account in this legislation, in order to 
insure the full cooperation of all involved, and the success of the bill. 
Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Vigorito. The Chair finds the two amendments very satisfac- 
tory, and I think they should be adopted. 
Are there any additional comments? 

Mr. Harkix. I have a question on this. This goes under section :>. In 
implementing this section that is what you are talking about— 
section 5? 

Mr. Richmond. Yes. 

Mr. Harkix. Fine: the only question I have is: You said, "the 

Secretary shall take into account consumer preferences and needs" 

Mr. Richmond. Well, on a practical matter if he does not take them 
into account. T don't believe those markets will not be very successful. 
Mr. Harkix. In other words, you are trying to say they take into 
account different consumer preferences in different areas. They try to 
develop those markets to meet different areas of the country— differ- 
ent areas of the city— that type of thing? 

Mr. Richmond. You cannot sell collard greens outside of Bedford- 
Stuyvesant in my district. On the other hand, you have to have collard 
greens in Bedford- Stuyvesant. The two amendments mandate con- 
sumer recognition by the Department of Agriculture. 
Mr. Harkix. All you have to do is take that into account I 



196 

Mr. Rn ii m<»m). That is right. So this operation can be successful. 
I think this is an excellenl piece of legislation. 

Mi'. II\i;ki\. I Jo not have any objection. 

Mr. Vigorito. The previous question is moved for the adoption of 
the two amendments by Mr. Richmond. 

All those in favorsay aye; all those opposed say nay. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The two amendments 
are agreed. 

The subcommittee will wait for a few minutes. We expect Mis. 
Heckler to be here for the final passage of the vote, fn courtesy to her, 
I think we should wait. 

M r. I [arkix. Mr. Chairman ! 

Mi-. Vigorito. Yes. 

Mc IIakkix. I have a question. 

I would be the first to admit that I have not boon too involved in this 
piece of legislation, although I support the intent of it. 

For a long time I have been interested in trying to develop farmer 
markets. In my State — -in my home town — we have already developed 
them. We have the farmer markets that operate, of course, during the 
traditional growing season in Iowa. They have been very successful on 
the weekends. 

One of the problems that you seem to run into in this concerns dif- 
ferent laws that may have been passed by the Department of Health, 
let's say. regulating the selling of produce and especially meat and 
meat products — poultry and eggs inspections, for example, that type 
of thing. For example, in Towa I can go out to a farm and buy fresh 
eggs without any problem at all. There are no regulations from the 
Department of Agriculture covering that. However, if that person 
brought those eggs to a market, they are then covered by State laws 
and I think Federal laws. 

The same holds true of meat. I can go out to the farm and buy a 
side of beef with no problem, take it to a local packer and have it cut 
up, put into a locker. But if that same meat is taken in a truck, for 
example, to sell in the open market, then you run into Federal and 
State laws again. T consider some of them to be burdensome, onerous 
laws that do not take into account this type of a system, a farmers- 
market system. 

I am just wondering whether any thought has been given to that — 
whether there is anything in the bill that speaks to those problems 
that are going to be encountered in selling in these open markets be- 
cause of State or Federal regulations and laws. 

Perhaps counsel may know ? 

Is there anything in the bill that speaks directly to the problems 
that are going to be encountered when you bring produce, meat, milk, 
poultry, and eggs from a farm to a market and then you go to a market 
to buy it \ Those are covered by State and Federal health laws, meat 
inspection acts — that type of thing. 

Mr. Barton. First, probably the vast majority of activity under the 
bill would involve fresh fruits and vegetables, that is, unprocessed 
commodities. I do not think it would be anticipated that there would 
be that much processed cheese, processed meats, and so on involved. 

There is a provision on page 5 beginning on line 11 for the Secretary 
to work with the State Departments of Agriculture and the Extension 



197 

Service in the States to compile relevant laws and regulations relevant 
to the conduct of direct marketing; formulate enabling legislation; 
possible recommendations or changes in the law if that is necessary to 
enable them to operate. So there is that sensitivity in the bill. 

Mr. Harkin. How about Federal laws? We have some Federal laws 
that cover that also. 

Mr. Barton. That is not explicitly limited to State laws. 

Mr. Harkin. But it says "relevant to the conduct of the various 
methods of such direct marketing within the State/' 

Mr. Barton. Yes. I do not think there is direct coverage of that 
otherwise. The National Farmers Organization has sold hamburger 
and there was strict compliance with inspection of the meat that was 
involved going through unionized plants for the preparation of it. 

The idea is that there would have to be full compliance to the ex- 
tent that you use processed commodities — full compliance with State 
and Federal law. 

Of course, if there were any violations of the Meat Inspection Act, 
the Wholesome Meat Act, for example, I would assume that the ap- 
propriate action would be taken under that act and under the general 
authority of the Secretary of Agriculture. Again, there is the general 
authority here for the Secretary to spell out rules and regulations that 
would elaborate upon the language of the bill which could clarify 
that in terms of the relationship with other laws. 

Mr. Brown. Will the gentleman yield ? I call your attention further 
to the provisions on page 6, section 6(b), which directs the Secretary 
to "foster activities including, but not limited to," and then, paragraph 
(2) which provides for "arrangements for organizations of farmers 
and consumers, acting jointly or otherwise, to contract with processors 
for the preparation of farm commodities which require processing 
prior to their sale." 

Now presumably in fostering these activities you would have to take 
cognizance of the rules and regulations at any level — Federal as well 
as State — in order to solve any problems that might be encountered. 

Mr. Barton. If I may just pick up for a moment on what Air. Brown 
has said. The primary emphasis is on fresh fruit and vegetable 
markets. 

As Mr. Brown has just pointed out, there is a provision there for 
processed items. What we had in mind with this section 6(b) (2) is 
the kind of activity that the National Farmers Organization has been 
involved in. The provision, then, would provide for an organization — 
farmers or consumers — to contract with the processor. Again, that 
would have to be in full compliance with the Wholesome Meat Act. 
the Wholesome Poultry Act, and any other Federal regulations or 
laws that are applicable to that. 

Mr. Harkin. I do not mean to drag this out, Mr. Chairman. I just 
have one other comment. 

In the full committee we have just been through this long markup 
session on FIFRA regarding pesticides. Of course, we have all heard 
90 percent of the pesticides used in this country are used by individual 
homeowners, small gardeners — that type of thing — not by the large 
farmers. 

I know from my personal experience that in shopping in these 
markets in my own hometown, many times you buy fruits, vegetables. 



198 

produce, el cetera, in which there has been a rather heavy application 
of pesticides, more so than you would find on a commercial farm. 

I am jus! wondering whether any thought has been given to that 
by any of the people who have been involved in this hill in terms of 
trying to foster the growing of these products ami the marketing of 
these products without this heavy use of pesticides. 1 think this hap- 
pens moil' with small gardeners than with Large farmers. They are 
t he o\ erusers of pest icicles, at least in my experience. 

Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment you 
on this hill. I vvasat the Department of Agriculture talking with 8ome 
middle-management people the other day and I met a man named 
Ken Brasfield who has been with the A US for some time. Mr. Bras- 
field believes this bill is a most necessary bill, which would assist his 
division, which designs direct marketing programs. 

1 talked to about a hundred fruit and vegetable experts in the De- 
partment of Agriculture and they said that the reason why farmers 
markets have not grown up to now is that they have never had any 
money to push them. But what your bill does that no one else has 
ever done is add a small amount of money plus a commitment to push 
this whole concept. 

There is a great deal of enthusiasm over this bill. 

Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we appear to 
have completed all the amendments, I would like to move that the 
bill be reported favorably to the full committee with one amendment 
striking all after the enacting clause and incorporating the subcom- 
mittee amendments into the bill as originally introduced so that we 
will have a clean bill before tin 1 committee. 

Mr. Vigorito. It has been moved that the bill be reported favorably 
to the fill 1 committee with one amendment striking out all after the 
enacting clause and incorporating the subcommittee amendments into 
the bill as originally introduced. 

All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye; all those 
opposed say nay. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed. 

The bill, as amended, will be reported to the full committee. 

The subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1 1 a.m.. the meeting adjourned.] 



FARMER-TO-CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING ACT OF 

1976 



WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10:25 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Matins, Bergland, Brown, Bowen, 
Litton, Breckinridge, Richmond, Nolan, Weaver, Baldus, Krebs, 
Harkin, Hightower, Bedell, McHugh, English, Jenrette, D' Amours, 
Wampler, Sebelius, Findley, Thone, Symms, Madigan, Peyser, Heck- 
ler, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn, and Moore. 

Staff present : Robert M. Bor and Hyde H. Murray, counsels; John 
E. Hogan, associate counsel; Steve Allen, Glenda Temple, and Mary 
Jarratt, staff assistants; Norman Gay and Roxana Burris, staff con- 
sultants, Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice. 

Mr. Poage. The bill to be considered is H.R. 10339— Farmer-to- 
Consumer Direct Marketing Act. It is from Mr. Vigorito's subcom- 
mittee. 

[The bill H.R. 10339 follows :] 

(199) 



200 



04m CONGRESS 



H. R. 10339 



IN TIIE IIOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Oi ToiiEli 22, IDT.") 

Mr. ViGOUITU ( for himsel f. Mr. B m.dis. Mr. Herhlaxik Mr. IloWEX, Mr. Rkkck- 
ixridce, Mr. Brown of California, Mr. D'Amours, Mr. Kxgmsii, Mr. 
Fixdley, Mr. Fitjiiax, Mr. Hark in", Mrs. Heckler of Massachusetts, Mr, 
Jeffords, Mr. Jexrette, Mr. J ones of Tennessee. Mr. Litton, Mi 
Melciier, Mr. Mezvixkky, Mr. Xoi.ax. Mr. Peyser, Mr. Rrcirnoxn, Mr 
]v(»sF, Mr. Wamtlkr, and Mr. AYeaver) introduceil the following bill: 
which was referred to the Committee on Asrriculture 



A BILL 

To encourage the direct marketing of agricultural commodities 
from farmers to consumers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 tives of the United States of America in Ctngress assembled, 

3 That this Act may be cited as the "Farmer-to-Consumcr 

4 Direct Marketing Act of 1975". 

5 PURPOSE 

6 Sec. 2. It is the purpose of this Act to promote, through 

7 appropriate means and on an economically sustainable basis, 

8 the development and expansion of direct marketing of agri- 

9 cultural commodities from fanners to consumers. To accom- 

I 



201 

1 plish this objective, the Secretary of Agriculture (herein- 

2 after referred to as the "Secretary") shall initiate and 

3 coordinate a program designed to facilitate direct marketing 

4 from farmers to consumers for the mutual benefit of consum- 

5 ers and farmers. 

6 DEFINITION 

7 Sec. 3. For purposes of this Act, the term "direct 
S marketing from farmers to consumers" shall mean the mar- 
9 keting of agricultural commodities at any marketplace (in- 

10 eluding, but not limited to, roadside stands, city markets, 

11 and vehicles used for house-to-house marketing of agricrd- 

12 tural commodities) established and maintained for the pi.r- 

13 pose of enabling farmers to sell (either individually or 

14 through a farmers' organization directly representing the 
-15 farmers who produced the commodities being sold) their 

16 agricultural commodities directly to individual consumers, 

17 or organizations representing consumers, in a manner cal- 

18 culated to lower the cost and increase the quality of food to 

19 such consumers while providing increased financial returns 

20 to the farmers. 

21 SURVEY 

22 Sec. 4. The Secretary shall provide, through the Eco- 

23 nomic Research Service of the United States Department 

24 of Agriculture, or whatever agency or agencies the Secretary 

25 considers appropriate, a continuing survey of existing meth- 



202 

1 ods of direct marketing from farmers to consumers in each 

2 State. The initial survey, wliieli sliall l>c completed no later 

3 than one year following the date of enactment of this Act, 

4 shall include the number and types of such marketing meth- 

5 od< in existence 4 , the volume of business conducted through 

6 each such marketing method, and the impact of such mar- 

7 keting methods upon financial returns to farmers (including 

8 their impact upon improving the economic viability of small 

9 fanners) and food quality and costs to consumers. 

10 DIRECT MARKETING ASSISTANCE WITIIIX THE STATES 

11 Sec. 5. (a) In order to promote the establishment and 

12 operation of direct marketing from farmers to consumers, the 

13 Secretary shall provide that funds appropriated to carry out 
H this section he utilized by State departments of agriculture 
13 and the Extension Service of the United States Department 
1G of Agriculture for the purpose of conducting or facilitating 

17 activities which will initiate, encourage, develop.,or coordinate 

18 methods of direct marketing from fanners to consumers 

19 within or among the States. Such funds shall he allocated to a 

20 State on the basis of the feasibility of direct marketing from 

21 farmers to consumers within that State as compared to other 
— States and shall be allocated within a State to the State 

23 department of agriculture and to the Extension Service on 

24 the basis of the types of activities which are needed in the 

25 State and on the basis of which of these two agencies, or 



203 

1 combination thereof, can best perform these activities. The 

2 activities shall include, but shall not be limited to — 

3 (1) sponsoring conferences which arc designed to 

4 facilitate the sharing of information (among farm pro- 

5 iducers, consumers, and other interested persons or 

6 fgroups) concerning the establishment and operation of 

7 rdirect marketing from farmers to consumers; 

8 (2) compiling laws and regulations relevant to 
J) the conduct <tf the various methods of such direct mar- 

10 ' kcting within the State, formulating drafts of enabling 

11 legislation needed to facilitate such direct marketing, 

12 determining feasible locations for additional facilities for 
1** such direct marketing, and preparing and disseminating 

practical information on the establishment and opera- 
tion of such direct marketing; and 

(3) providing technical assistance for the purpose of 
aiding interested individuals or groups in the establish- 
ment of arrangements for direct marketing from farmers 
to consumers. 

(b) In the implementation of this section, the Secre- 
tary shall hike into account consumer preferences and needs 
which may bear upon the establishment and operation of 
firrnngeinents for direct marketing from fanners to consumers, 



14 
15 
1G 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 



204 

1 ANNUAL REPORT 

2 Sec. 6. The Secretary shall periodically review the ac- 
:) ti\iik'> carried out uudcr this Ac! and shall report to the 

4 Committee on Agriculture, Iniicd States House of Reprc- 

5 scntatives, and the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 

6 United States Senate, within one year of the date of enact- 

7 nient of this Act. and annually thereafter, with respect to the 
S effectiveness of this Act. The Secretary shall include in such 

9 report a State-by-State summary of the results of the survey 

10 conducted under this Act. and a summary of the activities 

11 and accomplishments of the Extension Service and the State 

12 departments of agriculture in the development of direct mar- 

13 kcting from farmers to consumers during the previous year. 
14 

AUTHORIZATION OF APPEOPMATIOXS 

Sec. 8. (a) For purposes of carrying out the provisions 

i c 

of sections 4 and 6, there are authorized to he appropriated 

17 i" 

such sums as are necessary. 

18 

(h) For purposes of carrying out the provisions of 

19 

section 5, there is authorized to he appropriated §1,500,000 

°0 

for each of the fiscal years beginning October 1, 197(1, 

21 October 1, 1977, ami October 1. 1978. 



205 

Mr. Vigorito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Does anyone want me to explain the bill ? 

Mr. Poage. I think it's in order to explain it. certainly. 

Mr. Vigorito. The bill was originally passed out of the subcommit- 
tee as H.R. 7488. We introduced a clean bill— II. R. 10339— for which 
we got bipartisan support. 

The purpose is to promote through appropriate means and on eco- 
nomically sustainable bases the ultimate expansion of direct market- 
ing of agricultural commodities from farmers to consumers. 

We eliminated what was a little controversial: the Government 
setting up two pilot projects. That has been eliminated in order to get 
support from the subcommittee. 

There is only one minor change that I would like to make. I ask 
unanimous consent to make a minor change on page 5. Change section 
8 to read section T. They were renumbered. 

Mr. Poage. Without objection, the change will be done; that is, if 
there is no objection. 

Mr. Richmond. I move the question, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mathis. I have a question on this. 

Air. Poage. We will go back and start over. 

[Whereupon the committee proceeded to other business and did not 
return to consideration of H.R. 10339.] 



FARMER-TO-CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING ACT OF 

1976 



THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1975 

House of Representatives, 
Committee ox Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10:25 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building. Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present: Representatives de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of North 
Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Matins, Bergland, Bowen, Rose, Litton, 
Breckinridge, Richmond. Nolan, Weaver. Baldus, Krebs, Hightower, 
Bedell, McHugh, English, Fithian, D'Amours, Sebelius, Findley, 
Thone, Symms, Madigan, Jeffords, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn, and 
Moore. 

Staff present : Robert M. Bor and Hyde H. Murray, counsels ; John 
E. Hogan, associate counsel; Gene Moos, staff analyst; Steve Allen, 
staff consultant; and Glenda Temple and Mary Jarratt, staff 
assistants. 

The Chairman. The next item is the bill H.R. 10339, the Farmer- 
to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act. This bill was reported as a clean 
bill from the Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and Consumer 
Relations and was reported on October 7, 1975, in an open business 
meeting. 1 

Without objection the bill will be considered before the committee 
and open to amendment at any point. The Chair will recognize the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Vigorito, chairman of the 
subcommittee. 

Mr. Vigorito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The purpose of this bill is to promote development and expansion 
of direct marketing of agricultural products from the farmers to 
consumers. 

In order to do this, the Secretary of Agriculture of the U.S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture may survey to what extent direct marketing is 
being done, and where it can be improved, and provide funds for $1.5 
million per year starting October 1, 1976. 

The work also will be done in conjunction with individual State 
departments of agriculture and the Extension Service. 

I think it is a good bill, and I hope that the committee will approve 
the bill. 

Mr. Poage. I simply wanted to reiterate a statement that T made 
so man y times. It has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of 



*No reporter's transcript is available for the October 7 meeting. 

(207) 



208 

the bill. This purpose clause, section 2, which is directly contrary to 
what I have thought. I do not believe thai this committee or any other 
committee of the Congress has got any business writing a Fourth 
of duly speech into the statute. I do not believe it has any business 
trying to explain its actions. This is something that ought to go into 
the report. I have no objection to it going into the report. I think that 
it is perfectly proper, hut for us to go to writing our reports in the 
Statute, and in the code, to say whai the purpose is. seems to me to 
he getting completely out of line. 

I want to he on record as objecting to that procedure. 
I have expressed this in relation to many other bills. 
I think this is a bad procedure in writing legislation. 
The Chairman. The gentleman from Virginia. 
Mr. Wampler. Mr. Chairman, the ranking minority member of 
the subcommittee, Mr. Findley. i< at another meeting this morning, 
lie asked me to state to the full committee that he has no objection 
to this bill. As a matter of fact, he supports it. I think he had some 
reservations about the draft of the bill, but he does support it and 
supports it enthusiastically. I wanted to make that explanation. 
The Chairman. Thank you. 
Is there a discussion \ 
Mr. de la Garza. I have an amendment. 
The Chairman. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. de la Garza. The amendment would be on page 5, line 20. It 
would strike out the words "each of." strike out the letter "s" after 
"years"; and on line 21, strike all of that line out. 

The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 
Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Chairman, what this does is to authorize it 
for 1 year rather than 3. 

I commend the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I think 
it is a good bill. I support it, but I think we ought, especially since 
we had a provision for the report of the survey and so on, to give the 
funds and letthem come back to see how well they have done and then 
we will give them some more if they have done a good job. 
The Chairman. Is there any further discussion? 
Mr. Vigorito. The bill has been cut down from the originally intro- 
duced version, from $7.5 million to $4.5 million. 

I am questioning whether this can all be done in the short space of 
1 year. 

I think we need more than 1 year. 

Would the gentleman from Texas be willing to compromise that and 
make it a 2-year bill? 

Mi. de i. a Garza. This has nothing to do with the legislation. All 
you do is to get an authorization for 1 year, and then come back for 
more. 

It is only the authorization process that T am concerned about. 
I think it would be well for the gentleman to have hearings after 
1 year of authorization. 

'The bill is permanent law but it is only the money that T would be 
concerned about. 

Mr. Sebelius. T oppose this. We are down now to where we are 
flooded on the floor. We have real problems there. I would be more 
agreeable to a 2-year bill to give us a little more flexibility. Otherwise, 






209 

if we have annual authorization every year, then we will never gel any 
Legislation passed. 

So I wonder about this. I understand what the gentleman from 
Texas is pushing for. Hut 1 wonder about the practical effect. 

Mr. Vioorito. I have noticed in my 11 years here in Washington 
that the workload for Congress has increased year after year. You are 
quite correct; we cannot have every little piece of legislation looked 
at every year. It is physically impossible. 

I thank the gentleman for his remarks. 

The Chairman. Does anyone wish to offer an amendment ( 

Mr. Poage. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas is recognized. 

Mr. Poage. This is simply applying the de la Garza philosophy 
which most of us agree is sound. It is applying it to this bill. 

If you are going to make an exception to the bills as they come 
along, and particularly because they are coming along late in the 
session, then you are going to completely break down the benefits that 
we would hope to obtain here. 

It is possible for this committee to authorize each year any and 
all of these programs which we want to authorize. 

It is perfectly possible that the Appropriations Committee does 
that for all of the activities of the U.S. Government. 

Certainly, we can do it for the Department of Agriculture. 

It is the sole question of whether you want to have a part in the 
influencing of the administration of these programs, or whether you 
want to turn all of the congressional influence of the administration 
of the program over to the appropriate committees. 

Somebody is going to have input at the Department. That is inevita- 
ble. Congress gives the authority to the Department. 

The Department knows, as well as anybody else, who is controlling 
the money they are getting, as it has long been, and I am criticizing 
the administration of the present speaker. 

For the past 8 years Ave have let the Department of Agriculture do 
different programs, and we have said "goodbye." If you want to con- 
tinue this program, then we have told them to talk to the Committee 
on Appropriations and we have told them not to come back to us. 

They have said "AVe have got what we want and we will not bother 
you any more." 

They have not bothered us, and we have not been able to bother 
them because they had what they wanted. 

If we are going to have an input into the way in which these pro- 
grams are administered, then you are going to have to follow the 
policy that Mr. de la ( Jarza is suggesting here. 

You cannot escape it by saying that it is going to impose too much 
work on us. 

If you do not want to work you ought not to get on the committee. 

There are some committees that do not work, and those of you who 
do not want to work ought to ask for membership on those committees. 

Mr. Sebelius. As far as the committee is concerned I do not mind 
the work. 1 am talking about the floor where we have the glut of work. 

As far as oversight work on this committee. I am in agreement. 

Mr. Poage. We can bring in omnibus bills of extending authoriza- 
tions. That is perfectly possible. 



210 

A^ain, I know I have 8 responsibility and I probably did not carry 

it out. but maybe I can see better now than I did then. 

I think when von call the Department of Agriculture you ought 
to get as much consideration as a member of the Appropriations 
( 'ommittee. 

I think every one of you knows that you do not. 

Mr. Thoxe. I bet you do. 

Mr. Poage. I do not know. 

I think it is worth maintaining the standing of this committee. 

Mr. de la Garza. Would the gentleman yield $ 

Mr. Poage. Yes. 

Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Chairman, let me add this. 

This i> Mr. Vigorito's legislation. 

MY. Poage. The subcommittee will get it next time. 

Mr. de la Garza. That is what I mean. When you say that you au- 
thorize it for 3 years, all you are doing is that you are not i>ivino' 
them the money for 3 years. Every year, whoever administers this 
legislation in the Department of Agriculture will come with the tech- 
nical people with his little book, to the Subcommittee on Agriculture 
and the Committee on Appropriations, and you will not know or hear 
from them at all. 

You said "Well, we authorized for 3 years in order not to have the 
program hindered in any way." 

They have to come every year to the Appropriations Committee. 
That is where they make their report as to how well they have done 
or how badly they have done. You do not see them for the next 3 
years. 

What T am saying is this: This is your baby, and therefore lei them 
come to you every year to tell you what they have done with it. 

Then they will go and <iet their money. 

That is the intent of my amendment. 

The Chairman. Ts there further discussion? 

Mr. Symms. Mr. Chairman, T would like to support the gentleman 
from Texas' amendment and talk a little further. As far as T am con- 
cerned. T fail to see what the necessitv is for the entire legislation. 

T have to admit T am not on that subcommittee. T have not had the 
benefit of the hearings or why we need it. 

T cannot think of any place in the world that T have ever been 
where as £ood a job of marketing agricultural products is done as in 
the United States. People spend about 10 percent of their income on 
groceries. 

T just read an article hero where they could not gfive the apricots 
awav in California this year. They left them on the tree and called 
up all the churches. The churches wanted to know when they could 
be delivered. The farmers told them the apricots were on the trees and 
had to picked, and they ended up staying on the trees. 

If you think the Government is going to improve this situation, 
T do not think thf»t will happen. 

T do not favor the bill but T favor the amendment. 

Mr. Sebeltup. T)o you have a fruit stand in front of your orchard? 

Mr. Symms. Yes. 

Mr. Sebeltus. That is what they have in mind. They want to irot 
more direct marketing:. 



211 

Mr. Symms. There is a way, and that is called the market. It is 
working today. People arc going to the fruit stands more and more. 

That is because of the trend of the times. It will not do any good 
to have a few more people down at the Department of Agriculture 
and maybe a little more money there. 

That is not our concern on this committee. 

Mr. Vigorito. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Symms. Yes. 

Mr. Vigorito. Many people in the Department of Agriculture and 
around the country see the merits of direct marketing, but unless we 
pass this limited measure I can pretty well assure yon that little, or 
nothing will he done. I think we have to give the Department a little 
shot in the arm. 

Mr. Symms. Explain to me how the Department of Agriculture is 
going to improve on the situation that we have now. People go out 
and buy direct. If they live a long way from the market, it has to be 
shipped in by train. If they live close by, then fine. 

I cannot understand how the Department of Agriculture could 
improve on this. They will probably get in the way. 

Mr. Vigorito. If the gentleman will yield further. 

Mr. Symms. I will be happy to yield. 

Mr. Vigorito. The Department would take a survey to see how it 
can facilitate the growth of direct marketing from farmers to 
consumers. 

Mr. Richmond. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Symms. 1 will be happy to yield. 

Mr. Richmond. Mr. Symms, there is nothing controversial about 
this bill. Everyone in this room wants to foster a rural, urban dialog 
and coalition between these two groups. 

Take New York City, for example, or any of our large cities. There 
is a notable lack of farmer-to-consumer markets. New York City has 
almost none. This is in an area where the Department of Agriculture 
could do a good job of getting the upstate New T York farmers in- 
troduced to our city. That is not happening now. 

Mr. Symms. What would the Department of Agriculture do? I 
would say those farmers have a responsibility to get down there and 
try and sell their stuff. Instead of being order takers, they could be- 
come marketers. 

A lot of it is the fault of the farmers. They are not salesmen. They 
do not go in and market. 

Mr. Richmond. The farmers, through the Agriculture Extension 
Service, can be led to work more closely with their customers, and 
be put in touch with new, potential markets. It is a good, constructive, 
healthful bill, and it will accomplish whatever anyone in this room 
wants to accomplish. It will sell more farm produce directly to con- 
sumers. If the consumer gets cheaper, fresher food, then the farmer 
has an opportunity for an easy market. This bill has tremendous 
potential. 

This type of farmer-to-consumer market is used throughout Europe 
and throughout most of the world, except for the large urban areas in 
the United States. 

Mr. Symms. I would like to have the gentleman understand that 1 
am not opposed to fruit stands. I am in favor of them. 



212 

Mr. Richmond. Then let us pass the bill. 

Mr. Sv.mms. I cannot understand why the taxpayers of this country 

should pay $2 or $3 million a year to hire people from the Department 
of Agriculture to go and do it. Is there any law against direct sales ( 

Mr. Richmond. They are not doing it. Fanners and consumers have 
to be educated and brought together. 

Mr. Sv.mms. Educated how i 

Mr. Richmond. By the Department of Agriculture working with 
the farmers, introducing them to markets, and doing the same with 
consumers. 

Mr. Symms. What countries in Europe have as good an agricultural 
marketing system as we have in the United States '. 

Mr. Richmond. As far as farmer-to-consumer markets there is not a 
country in Europe that does not have a better system than we have. 

Mr. Symms. Russia? 

Mr. Richmond. I am talking about Europe. Throughout Europe 
the farmer-to-consumer market is the accepted method of delivering 
produce. 

Mr. Symms. What percentage of their income do the people pay for 
groceries? That is, compared to the American housewife. 

Mr. Richmond. First, that is not the issue. Second, when it comes 
to vegetables, they are not that expensive in Europe. The expensive 
thing in Europe is meat and fish. 

All I am saying is that this is a constructive healthful bill that would 
get farmers and urban people a little more together. I do not see why 
we here should not let a good healthful bill like this go through. It 
will help agriculture and it will help cities. 

Mr. Symms. I will have to admit I have not researched this, but the 
fact that we are going to pay Sli/> million to do something that the 
free market can do for itself. I cannot really see it. I support the de la 
Garza amendment, and yield back my time. 

The Chairman. Is there further discussion? 

If not, the question occurs on the amendment of the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. de la Garza, which would on page 5, line 20, strike the 
words "each of." the "s" on the word "years,"' and all of line 21. 

All in favor signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed \ 

The Chair is in doubt. 

All those in favor of the amendment raise your right hand. 

The Clerk. Sixteen. 

The Chairman. Opposed same sign. 

The Clerk. Seven. 

The Chairman. There being 1(> ayes and 7 nays, the amendment is 
agreed to. 

Are there other amendments to the bill? 

If not, I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Vioorito. I move that the bill be approved. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania moves that the 
bill H.R V 339, as amended, be reported favorably to the House with 
the recommendation that it be passed. 

All those in favor signify by saying aye. 

Opposed? 






213 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the mocion is 
adopted. 

The gentleman from Idaho would like to express views on the bill. 
Of course every member has 3 days to file dissenting or additional 
views. 

Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have any recommendations 
as to its appearance on the Suspension Calendar? 

Mr. Vigorito. Yes. 

[The committee proceeded to consider other business.] 



EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK CREDIT ACT EXTENSION 



WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit 

of the Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 
The subcommittee met at 2:25 p.m.. pursuant to notice, in room 
1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bob Bergland (chair- 
man of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Richmond, Baldus, Hightower, Bedell. 
English, Madigan, Jeffords, and Kelly. 

Staff present: Robert M. Bor, counsel; John E. Hogan and 
William A. Imhof, associate counsels; Susan Bell and John M. 
Lindley, staff assistants. 

Mr. Bergland. The subcommittee will come to order. 
This meeting has been called to consider amendments to and hope- 
fully report out the bill H.R. 15059, to amend the Emergency Live- 
stock Credit Act of 1974. 

[The bill H.R. 15059 follows:] 

(215) 



216 



Olui CONGRESS 
'Jo Session 



H. R. 15059 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

August 4, 1976 

Mr. Berglaxd introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Agriculture 



A BILL 

To amend the Emergency Livestock Credit Act of 1974. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresenta- 

2 lives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That section 8 of the Emergency Livestock Credit Act of 

4 1974 (88 Stat. 391, as amended; 7 U.S.C. Prec. 1961) 

5 is amended to read as follows : 

6 "Sec. 8. The provisions of this Act shall become effective 

7 upon enactment, and the authority to make new guarantees 

8 shall expire on Septemher 30, 1978.". 



217 

Mr. Bergland. H.R. 15059 is a bill to extend the Emergency Live- 
stock Credit Act for 2 years without change. The Department of 
Agriculture endorses the project, but suggests that it be amended 
to extend the program for only 1 year. 

Are there any amendments to the bill, H.R. 15059? 

If not, the Chair would entertain a motion that the bill be reported 
with the recommendation that it be passed. 

Mr. Baldtjs. I recommend that the bill be reported with the recom- 
mendation that it be passed. 

Mr. Bergland. The gentleman from Wisconsin has moved that the 
bill H.R. 15059 be reported to the full committee with the recom- 
mendation that it be passed. 

Those in favor say aye. 

Those opposed say no. 

The ayes appeal 1 to have it. The ayes have it, and the bill is agreed to. 

The Chair would suggest that this be a candidate for the Suspen- 
sion Calendar and be moved through the House rather expeditiously. 

I have been informed by our counterpart in the other body that 
they would take a House-passed bill and pass it without change so 
that the matter can be sent to the President at an early date. 

The program, therefore, will not lapse and can continue in its 
present form. 

[The subcommittee proceeded to other business.] 



EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK CREDIT ACT EXTENSION 



THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Agriculture. 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.. pursuant to notice, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present : Representatives Poage, Vigorito, Jones of North Carolina, 
Melcher. Bergland, Bowen, Rose, Breckinridge, Nolan, Weaver, 
Baldus, Krebs, Harkin, Hightower, Bedell. McHugh, English, 
Fithian. Jenrette. Thornton, Wampler, Sebelius, Thone, Symms, 
Madigan, Jeffords. Kelly. Grassier, Hagedorn, and Moore. 

Staff present : Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert M. Bor, coun- 
sel; William A. Trnhof and John E. Hogan, associate counsels; 
James E. Springfield, food programs specialist and budget officer; 
Gene Moos, staff analyst ; John M. Lindley and Glenda Temple, staff 
assistants; Gerry Jorgensen, staff consultant, Subcommittee on De- 
partment Operations. Investigations and Oversight : Alan M. Gray, 
staff consultant. Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains; George 
Dunsmore, staff consultant. Subcommittee on Dairy and Poultry; 
L. T. Easley, press assistant. 

The Chairman. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order. 

The committee meets this morning for consideration on three 
bills reported by the Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit. 

These include H.R. 15059, by Mr. Bergland. to amend the Emergency 
Livestock Credit Act of 1974. Without objection, it will be considered 
ps read before the committee and open to amendment at any point. 

The Chair recognizes the distinguished chairman of the Subcom- 
mittee on Conservation and Credit, the gentleman from Minnesota. 
Mr. Bergland. 

Mr. Bergland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

There is a description of the bill in the printed material that is 
before each member of the committee. 

The subcommittee held public hearing on this proposition. The 
Department of Agriculture was the only witness. They endorsed the 
extension of the act without change. 

While they did endorse a 1-year extension, the subcommittee has 
recommended that it be continued for 2 years. 

That derives from the Senate bill which we have copied verbatim. 
The two bills have been introduced in identical form. 

The matter before us would extend the act for "2 years. 

The program has been used quite extensively of late. 

(219) 



220 

I do not have the most recent numbers in terms of borrowers who 
have availed themselves of the program, nor of the total dollar 

amount-. 

Dr. James Bostic, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, is here. 

Suffice it to say, however, that the program is being widely used in 
the Northern Plains States where the drought has caused a severe 
financial hardship on many, many livestock producers who are without 
iced and are going to have to incur considerable debt in order to Stay 
in business. 

The experience in the program has been good. But there have been 
Losses which were anticipated at the time the program was approved, 
but nothing has occurred out of the ordinary. 

If there are any questions. I would be glad to try to answer them. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions? 

Mr. Brian. vxd. I would further report that the matter was reported, 
from the subcommittee unanimously by a voice vote. 

The Chairman. Is there discussion? 

The Chair notes that we do not have a quorum at this time. I sug- 
gest that we move on immediately to the next bill and that we hear 
any motions to report H.R. 15059 when a quorum is present. 

Without objection, we will proceed to the bill S. 3051 by Senator 
Dole — to amend the Commodity Exchange Act. 

[The committee proceeded to other business.] 

The Chairman. We have exactly 21 members present and I would 
like to return to the other bill so that we can take action while a 
quorum is present. 

Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is recognized 
for the bill H.R. 15059. 

Mr. Bergland. Mr. Chairman, the bill TT.R. 15059 was amended 
in the Senate by the Senate committee yesterday in two instances. 
I do not know if this committee wants to consider those amendments. 

It would be my recommendation to report this bill to the floor 
without amendment, with a straight simple extension of the Emer- 
gency Livestock Credit Act. 

One of the amendments that the Senate added is not germane. It 
would authorize the Department of Agriculture to require livestock 
feed grain for the emergency program. 

The second would authorize changes in the emergency lending 
title, which this bill does not amend, which would direct the Secre- 
tary to set aside the repavment of principal and interest for up to 2 
years under certain conditions. 

Neither of those Senate amendments are germane to this bill. Mr. 
Chairman, and it would be mv feeling that we ought not to encumber 
this bill by those two amendments. 

I would recommend that we report the bill TT.R. 15059 with the 
recommendation that it do pass. 

The Cttatrmax. Ts there any discussion on that motion? 

Mr. M.\nTGAX\ As Mr. Bergland has pointed out, it was reported 
out of the subcommittee unanimously. 

The only thing in question is the fact that it does have a 2-year 
extension where the Department of Agriculture wanted only a 1-year 
extension. 

The point needs to be made that the constituencies affected are 
unanimous in their support as expressed to me. both Republicans and 



221 

Democrats, for the 2-year extension. I think that that is the thing 
to do. As I indicated, it was reported unanimously from the sub- 
committee. 

The Chairman. Is there further discussion on the motion of the 
gentleman from Minnesota? 

Mr. Nolan. You want to pass it out without amendment? 

Mr. Bergland. I have moved that this be reported to the floor 
without amendment. 

Mr. Nolan. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Bergland. Surely. 

Mr. Nolan. Was it in the Senate that this bill was amended to 
provide for a 2-year moratorium on repayment of the emergency 
livestock loans and FmHA loans to designated counties? 

Mr. Bergland. The Senate accepted two amendments offered by 
the junior Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Humphrey, to authorize the 
Secretary to purchase livestock feed grains to replenish the depleting 
stocks under the emergency livestock feed grain program which is 
not germane to this bill. It is an entirely different subject matter. 

I would advise the gentleman from Minnesota that I have written 
to the Department of Agriculture asking them whether or not they 
have authority under the law to purchase grain for this program. 
I have not yet received an answer. 

It would be my intention to do all possible to amend the law. if 
need be, to authorize them to purchase grain to maintain stock for 
that program, if they lacked the authority. I am advised that they 
probably have the authority. They can buy grain to fuel the Public 
Law 480 program overseas. They can buy commodities for the school 
lunch program. So it seems reasonable to me that they can use the 
same authority to buy grain and meet the domestic needs of hard- 
pressed livestock people. 

So, I would recommend that that matter be deferred until we get 
an opinion from the Department as to whether they can maintain 
their program. 

The setting aside of the interest and principal payments for up 
to 2 years, I am advised, did not pertain to this bill — not to the 
livestock loan program — but rather to the emergency credit provisions 
of the Consolidated Farm Home Administration Act. Counsel can 
correct me if I am mistaken in that regard. 

Mr. Bor. I spoke with the staff at the Senate committee this 
morning, Mr. Bergland. 

There are two provisions which deal with providing a grace period 
on repayment of loans. 

One would amend the emergency loan authority which is contained 
in the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to provide a 
grace period of 2 years for principal and interest. The other provision 
relates to the Emergency Livestock Credit Act. 

I was advised by the Senate staff that there is a technical problem 
in that the loans which are made under the Emergence Livestock 
Credit Act are guaranteed loans and not loans made by the Depart- 
ment. 

So, the language that probably will come out of the committee 
will provide for the Secretary to use whatever action he may deem 
appropriate to encourage the private lenders to grant a grace period 



222 
of this type on loans made under the Emergency Livestock Credit 

Ad. 

.Mr. Nolan. I apologize. I was misinformed yesterday. 

I was informed that tin- Legislation would not be brought up today. 

It i- my desire to offer an amendment to this bill to provide for a 
2-year moratorium on repayment of both emergency livestock loans 
and FniIIA operating loan- m disaster-designated areas. 

So I wish that I had had the Language prepared for that amend- 
ment. 

I would have asked for counsel's assistance, but counsel was of the 
opinion when I made the request yesterday that we would not be 
taking this up today. 

Some of the very best farmers in South Dakota and parts of Iowa 
and parts of Nebraska, who have never asked for any Government 
assistance, are faced in some cases with their third year of drought. 
Some of our very best farmers have their backs up against the wall. 
They are in deep financial trouble. 

I really feel that this is an important amendment, and 1 definitely 
want it to be considered either as a part of this bill or, if counsel 
could advise me. maybe I could offer that amendment to H.R. 14041 
which would enable current legislation to proceed without that kind 
of a substantive change included. 

I would be glad to postpone it here until we take up H.R. 14641. 

Do I have to offer this amendment to the bill which is currently 
under consideration, H.R. 15059? 

Mr. Bon. The proposal has two facets to it. 

One is an amendment to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Develop- 
ment Act. That would appear to be more appropriate as an amend- 
ment to the bill which deals with the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act. 

It would not be germane to an amendment to the Emergency Live- 
stock Credit Act. 

The other provision which deals with providing a grace period on 
the Emergency Livestock Credit Act. of course, could be provided as 
an amendment to this act; but it does run into the kind of problem 
that was pointed out to me this morning by the staff of the Senate 
committee in that the loans under the Emergency Livestock Credit 
Act are not made by the Department. 

So that, if there is a grace period which is to be provided, it would 
have to be done by private lenders. And. while the Secretary could 
encourage the grace period to be — that is. that private lender- do 
allow a grace period— the decision would not be his. 

The Chairman. In view of counsel's response, I think the appro- 
priate course of action would be to include language in the com- 
mittee report similar to that which Senate may add to its bill urging 
the Secretary to use his influence with private lenders. We have no 
authority to provide for a grace period on loans which are made 
through private lenders. 

Mi-. Nolan*. It is my Understanding that that kind of language 
could be prepared. 

The Chairman. Does the gentleman want to suggest that that be 
added to the report \ 

Mr. Nolan. No. 

I want to offer an amendment here in this committee providing that 
there will be a 2-year grace period or moratorium. 



223 

Mr. BERdLAXD. Is the gentleman referring to proposing to amend 
tlie Emergency Livestock Credit Ad or the Consolidated Farm and 
Rural Development Act ( 

Mr. Xolax. The Senate amended the Emergency Livestock Credit 

Act to provide for a 2-year grace period for both emergeitcy livestock 
loans as well as for FnillA ownership and operating loans. 
Mr. Berglax©. The Senate amendment will not work because the 

Department of Agriculture does not make those loans. So the Senate 
has apparently consented to revising its act ion of yesterday in putt ing 
language in the Senate report, which I would be delighted to insert 
in the House committee report and urge its inclusion, admonishing 
the Secretary to do all possible 1 to defer and extend these principal 
and interest programs which are financed by the private community 
and insured by or guaranteed by USDA. 

But the USDA cannot direct a bank anywhere to defer and extend 
a loan that is made by that bank under the authority of this act. 

Nor do I think that we could amend the act in such a way that we 
could direct that bank not to collect a loan payment that is due. 

Mr. Nolan. Perhaps counsel could correct me. 

I understood counsel to say that proper language, in your judg- 
ment, could be prepared to provide for that. 

Mr. Bor. There is no question but that this could be done with 
respect to the emergency loan authority of the Farmers Home Admin- 
istration under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 
That is very simply done because the loans there are insured loans 
which are made by the United States. 

The Chairman. Would that amendment be germane to H.R. 14641 ? 

Mr. Bor. Yes. 

Mr. Xolax. All fight. 

Would an amendment providing a grace period for emergency live- 
stock loans be germane during consideration of H.R. 14641 ? 

The Chairman. Perhaps I do not understand the problem. As I 
understand it, the Emergency Livestock Loan program provides for 
guarantees by the United States to private lenders for the purpose of 
making loans. 

Any amendment in the House or Senate which directs a 2-year 
moratorium on such loans could not be operative inasmuch as they 
cannot direct the Department to grant a grace period on a loan made 
by a private lender. 

Mr. Nolan. I thought I understood counsel to say that we could. 

The Chairman. Counsel has said that we could amend the Con- 
solidated Farm and Rural Development Act to provide that those loans 
made directly by the Department be subject to a grace period for 2 
years. 

We have two typos of loans: direct loans and loans that are 
guaranteed. 

Although it is beyond the scope of our authority to direct that there 
be a moratorium on guaranteed loans, we do have the ability to provide 
for a moratorium on direct loans. 

In other words, the direct loan moratorium could be offered as an 
amendment on H.R. 14641, but a moratorium could not be effected on 
guaranteed loans through an amendment to H.R. 15059. 

Mr. Xolax. Then T withdraw my objections. I apologize to the 
committee for not having ironed this out beforehand. 



224 

The Chairman. I want to assure the gentleman that if this inter- 
pretation of the situation turned out to be incorrect. I would do every- 
thing in my power to insure that he was in no way disadvantaged by 
not offering the amendment today. At any rate. I feel sure that this 
interpretat ion is accurate. 

Mr. Nolan. I appreciate the chairman's indulgence. 

Mr. Weaves. I would like to ask Mr. Bergland or counsel what 
powers would the Secretary have to help encourage the hanks to post- 
pone payment on loans) What could he do? »Just talk to them? 

Mr. Bergland. 1 would have to defer to Dr. James Bostic who is 
here today. He is the Departments expert in these matters. 

In view of the fact that these loans are made by private institu- 
tions, and FmllA guarantees their payment, it would be my opinion 
that FmllA's role would he limited to being advisory. 

What could you do, I )r. Host ic \ 

Mr. Bostio. Mr. Hero-land, all I think we could do is to ask them 
to defer payment of principal and interest. There would be no way 
that we could force them to do it. particularly since we do not make the 
loan and we have no money in it, and it is their money. 

So I do not think there is anything we could really do except en- 
courage them. 

Mr. Weaver. Can you prolong your own guarantees? Do you have 
that discretion \ 

Mr. Bostic. The law provides that the loans can be made for 7 years 
plus an additional 8. 

In that case, the individual who has the loan has to pay the interest 
costs to the bank. 

Our guaranty can be extended for 7 plus 3 years. 

Mr. Weaver. So you can tell the bank to extend the guaranty? 

Mr. Thoxe. That does not solve the problem for the bank. It has 
to <ret its interest payment. 

Mr. Bostic. That is correct. 

Mr. Thone. You can impair those contracts. 

Mr. Weaver. I am not asking for that. 

Mr. \olan. You could extend a loan over an additional 3-year 
period I 

Mr. Thone. Yes. 

Mr. Nolan. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the committee report 
language would at least encourage the Department to use what re- 
sources and vehicles that are available to them to encourage an exten- 
sion of loans. 

The Chairmax. 1 think we should explain the problem that the 
committee faces with respect to any amendment to this bill that would 
provide for extension. 

Mr. Baldus. 1 have one more question of Dr. Bostic. 

Along with the guarantee, I am sure there is imposed upon the 
lender the obligation to maintain that loan in <rood condition, in other 
words, do the thinirs that a normal lender would do with a normal 
borrower. 

I would assume then that, if you really wanted that lender to extend 
that loan, or at least make the option available for the lender to extend 
the loan, then you would have to advise him that you are sympathetic 
to that and that you would not regard it as a bad practice not to collect 
the loan on time. 



225 

Therefore that would nullify tire guaranty, 

Mr. Bostio. Mr. Baklus, I think we could tell him that, but he 

doesn't have to live with us. He lias to live with the bank examiners on 
the collection of loans. 

We could encourage him to consider a deferment of principal and 
interest, but in reality there would not be much we could do if he de- 
cided that his lending practices required that he collect the principal 
and interest. 

Mr. Baldus. I agree that you could not require him to do that, but 
on the other hand, you could assure him that he has not violated the 
terms of the guaranty by extending. Is that correct \ 

Mr. Bostic. Yes, we could do that. 

Mr. Baldus. Thank you. 

Mr. Jexrette. Dr. Bostic, in the past 5 years, what is the basic ratio 
of loans which you have made which are determined as direct loans 
rather than guaranteed loans I 

This might make our whole argument here moot. 

Mr. Bostic. Mr. Jenrette, the Emergency Livestock Credit Act was 
originally passed in 1974, and so we have had the bill since that time, 
and these have all been guaranteed loans. We have not made an}' in- 
sured loans. The law provides only for guaranteed loans. 

The Chairman. As members know, the Chair is very reluctant to 
cut off debate on this or any other bill, but we will not be able to bring 
any of these measures to the floor for action unless they are promptly 
reported by the committee. 

Although we have a quorum present, several members will have to 
leave shortly. The Chair, therefore, seeks advice as to whether mem- 
bers feel the bills ought to be put over, or whether they are ready for 
the previous question. 

Mr. Kelly? 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not want to delay the pro- 
ceedings, but, by the same token, I think it is not a good thing to sud- 
denly start telling the Department of Agriculture that they should 
start running this program like they are running the banking opera- 
tion out of a general store somewhere out in the four corners area of 
eastern Colorado. 

What ought to happen is this. If we have something in mind which 
should be in the law and should be within the limits of the authority 
of the Department of Agriculture, then it ought to be handled as if 
we were dealing with the millions of dollars that we are. We do not 
want to have the attitude of being generally helpful to everybody. 

The first thing we know, the entire program could start and develop 
a slack that is inconsistent with the responsibility we have to the tax- 
payers. 

So I think we should get our act together and find out what it is 
we want to do with precision. If it is not legal, then we should not do 
it. If it is legal, then we should say what it is. 

This committee report business without hearings — we have had 
comments about somebody having his back up against the wall. We 
have already given them emergency loans. We are now getting ready 
to give them grace periods. 

I think we ought to know why they need them, who they are. how 
much, and how long, and so forth'. 



226 

I certainly do not want to be committed to any thought of loose 
arrangement about report language without knowing exactly the di- 
mensions of what we are dealing with. 

Mr. Bergland, While I am sympathetic with the objectives of the 

Senate as repeated l>y the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. Nolan, it 
would not be my intention to insert report language without having 
the matter cleared by the ranking member on our subcommittee, the 
able gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Madigan, so that we are sure that 
everybody understands what goes into this. 

Mr. Thoxe. Mr. Chairman, I move 1 the previous question. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Nebraska moves the previous 
question. 

Is there objection? 

Hearing none, the previous question is ordered on the bill H.R. 
L5059. 

The gentleman from Minnesota has moved that the bill be reported 
to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. 

So many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

Those opposed, no. 

| No response.] 

The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. 

The record will show that a quorum is present. 

[The committee proceeded to other business.] 



UPGRADE TOP-LEVEL I SDA POSITIONS 



THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee on Department Operations, 

Investigations and Oversight, 
of the Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:15 a.m., in room 1302, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. E de la Garza (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Foley (chairman of the full committee), 
Weaver. Breckinridge, Harkin, Richmond, and Grassley. 

Staff present : Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert H. Bor, coun- 
sel; William A. Imhof and John E. Hogan, associate counsels; John 
M. Lindley, Nick Ashmore, and Glenda Temple, staff assistants; 
James A. Culver, staff consultant. Subcommittee on Dairy and Poul- 
try; Gerry Jorgensen. Subcommittee on Department Operations, In- 
vestigations and Oversight. 

Mr. de la Garza. The subcommittee will be in order. 

The first bill is H.R. 10133. 

[The bill, H.R. 10133, follows :] 

(227) 



228 



94th CONGRESS 
2d Session 



H. R. 10133 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

October 9, 1975 

Mr. Foley introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the 
Committees on Post Office and Civil Service and Agriculture 

March 2, 1976 

The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service discharged and referred solely 
to the Committee on Agriculture 



A BILL 

To upgrade the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture to 
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture; to provide for two addi- 
tional Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture; to increase the 
compensation of certain officials of the Department of Agri- 
culture; to provide for an additional member of the Board 
of Directors, Commodity Credit Corporation; and for other 
purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That (a) section 5313 of title 5 of the United States Code 

4 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 

5 paragraph : 

6 "(22) Deputy Secretary of Agriculture.". 
1-0 



229 

1 (b) Section 5314 of such title 5 is amended by striking 

2 out paragraph (3). 

3 (c) The Acts listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 

4 subsection are amended by striking out the words "Under 

5 Secretary of Agriculture" wherever they appear and by in- 

6 serting in lieu thereof the words "Deputy Secretary of Ag- 

7 riculture" : 

S (1) The Act of March 26, 1934 (48 Stat. 467; 

9 7 U.S.C. 2210). 

10 (2) The Act of June 5, 1939 (53 Stat. 809; 7 

11 U.S.C. 2211). 

12 (d) The officer occupying the position of Under Sccre- 

13 tary of Agriculture, on the date of enactment of this Act, may 

14 assume the duties of the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. 

15 The individual assuming such duties shall not be required to 

16 be reappointed by reason of the enactment of this Act. 

17 Sec. 2. There shall be hereafter in the Department of 

18 Agriculture, in addition to the Assistant Secretaries now pro- 

19 vided for by law, two additional Assistant Secretaries of 

20 Agriculture who shall be appointed b} r the President, by and 

21 with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall be rcspon- 

22 sible for such duties as the Secretary of Agriculture shall 

23 prescribe, and shall receive compensation at the rate now 

24 or hereafter prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of 

25 Agriculture. 



230 



! 8bo. 3. (a) Section 5315 of title 5 of the United States 

2 ( 'ode is amended by striking out " (4) " at the end of para- 

3 graph (11) and by inserting in lien thereof "(6)". 

4 (h) Section 5316 of such title 5 is amended as follows: 
g (1) By striking out paragraph (23). 

q (2) By striking out paragraph (55). 

7 (3) By striking out paragraph (63) and inserting 

5 in lieu thereof: 

9 "(63) Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

10 Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture.". 

H (c) Section 3 of Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 

12 of 1953 (67 Stat. 633) is hereby repealed. 

13 Sec. 4. Section 9 (a) of the Commodity Credit Corpora- 

14 (ion Charter Act, as amended (62 Stat. 1072, as amended, 

15 15 U.S.C. 7l4g(a)), is amended by striking out the third 

16 sentence and inserting in lieu thereof: "The Board shall con- 

17 sist of seven members (in addition to the Secretary), who 

18 shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice 

19 and consent of the Senate.". 

20 Sec. 5. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, 

21 this Act shall take effect on its date of enactment. 

22 (b) Subsection (b) (1) and subsection (c) of section 3 

23 of this Act shall take effect upon appointment of a Presiden- 

24 tial appointee to fill the successor position created by section 

25 2 of this Act. 



231 



1 (c) Subsection (b) (2) of section 3 of tbis Act shall 

2 take effect upon appointment of a Presidential appointee to 

3 fill the successor position created by section 2 of this Act. 



232 

Mr. ( rRAssLEY. Mr. ( Chairman, I make a point of order thai a quorum 
is not present. 

Mr. Dr. i. a Garza. Evidently a quorum is not present, but under 
the rules a quorum is not necessary, as I understand it, to continue 
the business of the committee though not to report a bill. We do not 
need a quorum to proceed; we need a quorum only to vote legislation 
out. 

Mr. Grassley. All right. I raised a point of order, and it is not justi- 
fied, so that is that. 

Mr. de r.v Garza. We are not going to report it without a quorum, 
but we do want to get the discussion out of the way while we await 
the quorum. Then we will not waste time. 

Mr. ( rRASSLEY. Fine. 

Mr. de la Garza. The bill, U.K. 10133, would upgrade the position 
of Under Secretary of Agriculture. We have had the hearings on 
this, and a member of the committee suggested that, in addition to 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on page 3, the Food and 
Nutrition Administrator be upgraded. 

Is that in the clean bill. Counselor? 

Mr. Bor. Xo, Mr. Chairman. 

If you will notice on page 3 of the bill, on line 9, there is provision 
made for adding the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service to the list of officials who would be upgraded to a 
level 5. The issue at the last meeting was whether there should be 
added, as well, the position of Administrator of the Food and Nutri- 
tion Service. 

Mr. de la Garza. We have been informed by the Department that 
they have no objection to that inclusion ? 

Mr. Bor. That is correct, sir. 

I think there is a letter before you that reflects the position of the 
Department. 

Mr. de la Garza. The Chair asks a question for the members' in- 
formation. I am not sure, so I say this only in an advisory way, that 
we would not want to be involved with the individuals concerned, 
whoever is the head of APHIS and whoever is the head of Food and 
Nutrition. Therefore, the Chair has a suggestion that, to avoid any 
semblance of getting involved with individuals, per se, that, if we 
were to accept this bill, we do so including Food and Nutrition and 
that we do so with an amendment making it effective on just any ar- 
bitrary day — let us say, January 1, 1977 — or some other suggested 
date that any member might have. 

This would bring it to the future with enough leeway so that we 
would not be dealing entirely with the individuals concerned, because 
there is always a possibility of retirement of the individuals con- 
cerned. That way we would not be dealing with a personal matter, 
but only with the position. 

Would there be any objection to that suggestion, with the possible 
exception that someone would have another date to offer? 

Mr. Grassley. Your suggestion is the inclusion of the position of 
Food and Nutrition? 

Mr. de LA Garza. Yes. The Department has no objection to this. 
but that we make the bill, in its entirety, applicable at some time in 
the future — 3 months or 6 months into the future. 



233 

If there is no objection or other suggestion, I would ask counsel to 
prepare an amendment making the bill applicable as of January 1, 
1977. 

Mr. Bor. Mr, Chairman, what we might do is to provide, in page 3, 
line 4, an addition such as the following. We might say that "Sect ion 
5316 of such title 5 is amended effective January 1, 1977, as follow-*': 
immediately before the language which provides for the upgrading 
of these two officials to a position of level .'>. 

Mr. Hogan. You would be raising the FNS to Assistant Secretary I 

Mr. Bor. No. This does not provide for raising the Administrator 
of Food and Nutrition Service to a position of Assii tant Secretary. 
All it does is retain his title as Administrator of Food and Nutrition 
Service, but change his salary level, so that, instead of being GS-18, 
he would be a level 5. 

That is the same thing that is provided in the bill for the position of 
Administrator of APHIS. 

Mr. Chairman, there were some suggestions that the Department 
had made to this bill at the time it was last before the subcommittee. 
I would like to arrange to have this passed around. Essentially, when 
the bill was drafted, it provided for upgrading the position of the 
Administrative Assistant Secretary. 

The administration has changed its attitude with respect to the 
position of Administrative Assistant Secretary. An amendment it has 
drafted would delete line 5 on page 3 so that position would not be 
upgraded. 

Then there was an issue raised as to the number of Assistant Secre- 
taries that would be increased by this bill in view of the fact that 
the Wampler research bill had provided for the addition of another 
Assistant Secretary. 

The bill, as it w r as originally drafted, provides, on page 2, line 19, 
for two additional Assistant Secretaries. Since the Wampler research 
bill, which was ordered reported by the full committee yesterday, 
adds an additional Assistant Secretary, the Department has suggested, 
on line 19, that the word "two" should be stricken and the word u one ? ' 
substituted in lieu thereof. 

Mr. Harkin. Why is that ? 

Mr. Bor. Initially, the Department had proposed two additional 
Assistant Secretaries. Since the Wampler research bill adds one, they 
felt that this bill should only add another one, so that the net result 
would still be a net addition of two Assistant Secretaries instead of a 
net addition of three. 

Also following this thing through, they had suggested that on page 
3, line 3, that the number "6" should be stricken, and "5" be substi- 
tuted therefor. Six refers to the number of Assistant Secretaries 
that would be in the Department of Agriculture. 

The only trouble with striking "6" and substituting "5" is that you 
end up with a net total of five, which is the same net total that is 
provided for in the Wampler research bill. I think you might want 
to retain the number "f>" here so that- we do end up with a net addi- 
tion of two. The "6" would reflect the total number of Assistant 
Secretaries in the Department resulting from the action taken on this 
bill and the action taken on the Wampler bill. 



234 

Mr. Hogan. You have a similar amendment in the Wampler bill 
in that it relate^ to a number although I was not there yesterday, so 

I do not know what action the committee took on that hill. 

Mr. Bor, The Wampler hill has an amendment which strikes "6" 
and substitutes "5" That was adopted yesterday by the committee, so, 

if we are going to add another Assistant Secretary, we would have 
to come up with a total of six instead of five. 

Mr. de la Garza. The Wampler bill is correct when it says "5»" 
If we do our thing, then we have to say "(\." 

Mr. BoR. That is right. 

Mr. de la Garza. Then we would, have to pass it after Wampler,, 
1 guess. 

Mr. Bor. The Wampler research bill was ordered reported yester- 
day by the committee, so it is likely to come up on the floor ahead of 
this bill. We could arrange the order of consideration on the floor of 
the House so that this bill would follow that one. 

Mr. de la Garza. Somewhere we would have to put "notwithstand- 
ing any other provision of law". 

Mr. Bor. Actually just by having the number "6", this carries it out. 

Mr. de la Garza. That we amend after Wampler ? 

Mr. Bor. My suggestion, therefore, would be that the amendments 
that the Department has proposed, which each of you have before 
you, should have deleted from them the line which says, "Page 3, line 
3, strike ' (6) ' and insert in lieu thereof ' (5) '." 

I think that line should be deleted. With the exception of that, I 
think it would be in proper form. 

Mr. de la Garza. xVt this point, let the record show T that a quorum 
is present. 

Therefore, in the amendment which you have just passed, if you 
would change the "2" to "1" on page 2, now does this provide for 
the food and nutrition upgrading? 

Mr. Bor. No ; this was drafted before that. 

In addition to this, there would be language that would provide as 
follows : 

On page 3, line 4, we would say : "Section 5316 of such title 5 is 
amended, effective January 1, 1977, as follows :" 

In addition to that, we would provide an addition immediately 
after line 10 that would insert a new paragraph (64-) as follows, that 
would read: "(64) Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service." 

The effect of what has been done would be to upgrade the position 
of the two administrators, both the Administrator of APHIS and 
the Administrator of Food and Nutrition Service, effective January 1, 
1977, to the position of level 5, instead of positions GS-18, the salary 
level they now enjoy. 

Mr. de la Garza. Is there any objection to making those changes as 
amendments to the bill before us \ 

If not, we will instruct counsel to make the changes. 

Is it possible they can be made in the form of one amendment? 

Mr. Bor. Yes, we could do that and have them ready. If it is possible 
to have them considered at the business session of the full committee 
today, we could have them ready at that time. 

Mr. de la Garza. All right. If there is no objection, counsel is 
instructed to do that. 

Mr. Richmond. I move the question. 



235 

Mr. de la Garza. With that amendment in order, Mr. Richmond 
moves that the bill be reported to the full committee. 
Mr. Grassley. I ask for a rollcall. 
Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Grassley asks for a rollcall. 
The clerk will call the roll. 

(The rollcall follows:) 

Ayes: Representatives Richmond, Harkin, Breckinridge, Weaver, de la Garza, 
Foley. 

Nays : Representative Grassley. 

The Clerk. Six ayes. One no. 

Mr. de la Garza. There being six ayes and one no. the bill is 
reported to the full committee with counsel being instructed to pre- 
pare the amendment as approved by the subcommittee. 

[The subcommittee proceeded to other business.] 



UPGRADE TOP-LEVEL USDA POSITIONS 



TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Committee ox AGRictrLTURE, 

Washington, B.C. 

The committee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Bergland, Breckinridge. Rich- 
mond, Nolan, Weaver, Baldus, Krebs, Hightower. Bedell, McHugh. 
English, Fithian, Wampler, Sebelius, Thone, Symms, Johnson, Madi- 
gan, Heckler, Jeffords, Kelly, Grassley, Hageclorn, and Moore. 

Staff present: Fowler West, staff director; Robert Bor and Hyde 
Murray, counsels; William Imhof, and John Hogan, associate coun- 
sels; John Lindley, Glenda Temple, and Susan Bell, staff assistants; 
Gene Moos, staff analyst: James Springfield, food programs special- 
ist and budget officer: L. T. Easley, press assistant: James A. Culver 
and George Dunsmore, staff consultants, Subcommittee on Dairy and 
Poultry : Weldon Barton and Leon Geyer, staff consultants. Subcom- 
mittee on Domestic Marketing and Consumer Relations: Leighton 
Lang, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice: Gerry 
Jorgenson, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Department Operations, 
Investigations and Oversight. 

The Chairman. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order. 

The committee meets this morning to conclude consideration of 
two pending bills and the resolution proposed by Mr. Moore as well 
as to begin consideration of two bills reported from the Subcom- 
mittee on Departmental Operations, Investigations and Oversight. 

The first item of business this morning is the bill H.R. 10133, to up- 
grade the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture. 

The bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any 
point. 

The Chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentle- 
man from Texas, Mr. de la Garza. 

Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Chairman, this was introduced at the request 
of the Department of Agriculture. 

In realining the administrative functions and duties of the De- 
partment of Agriculture, they find themselves needing to upgrade 
one position. The bill would upgrade two positions. 

The position of the Director of Animal Plant Health Inspection 
Service — APHIS — is upgraded in order to give him the title com- 
mensurate with the responsibility of that position. 

(237) 



77-139 O - 77 - 16 



238 

Tn the hearings, our colleague from New York, Mr. Richmond, 
recommended — and 1 think I can quote him- that "if you're going to 

do it for animals, then you can do it for people." 
The Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, which is 

basically the same level and with the same responsibility, be up- 
graded also. 

Contacting the Department, they had no objection and suggested 
that it might be well to do so. 

Therefore. I do have an amendment that will upgrade one level. 
I do not know the classification level, but the practicality is that to 
upgrade one level at APHIS— and now this will include the Food 
and Nutrition Division — and also the request at the time was for the 
upgrading of the changing of designation of the Under Secretary of 
Agriculture to Deputy Secretary of Agriculture which this bill does. 
The original bill also asks for two additional assistant secretaries. 
The Department has requested that inasmuch as the Wampler bill 
on research and marketing — that is. his bill on agriculture research — 
brings its own assistant secretary level in this legislation and since it 
has passed the committee and in all probability will be enacted into 
law. they recommend that this particular legislation — which Chair- 
man Foley introduced — be reduced to one assistant secretary. 

Therefore, what this legislation does is to change the designation 
of under secretary to deputy secretary. 

Tt provides for one assistant secretary in addition to what they 
now have considering the possibility of the Wampler bill being passed. 
It upgrades the pay of the Administrator of APHIS and the Ad- 
ministrator of the Food and Nutrition Division. 

Mr. Bor. The current salary is GS-18. They would be upgraded 
from GS-18 to a level 5. 

I think it does not involve any increase in salary, but rather a 
change in the grade designation. 

The Chairman. Is counsel saying that the existing limitations on 
present salaries are such that the maximum would be reached at 
grade 18? 

Mr. Bor. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Is there a salary designation which is on paper, 
so to speak, for a grade 5 { 

I think the maximum is about $38,000. 

Mr. Murray. It's $37,800 for GS-18. That is also the statutory 
salary ceiling for level 5. They have exactly the same pay. 
The Chairman. T see. 

Mr. Murray. It is just a different designation in the classification 
system. 

' Mi\ Poage. It puts an extra star on the shoulder patch. 
Mr. ni- la Garza. Is the pav scale $38,000? 

Mr. Murray. The Assistant Secretary is $42,000 or something like 
that. Another provision of the bill would give the Under Secretary a 
grade raise of about $2,000 a year. lie would go from about $42,000 
to about $44,000. .' 

Mr de la Garza. The fi*rure I remember is that the total cost ot the 
package would be under $60,000. I think that is what was quoted per 
year. 

I move the passage, Mr. Chairman. 

The Ch mrm \n. Does the gentleman move the amendment ( 



239 

Mr. de la Garza. Yes; the change is in the amendment, and I offer 
the amendment to the bill. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. de la Garza, 
moves the adoption of the subcommittee amendments. 

Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to consider them en 
bloc? 

Mr. de la Garza. Yes; inasmuch as they are on one page, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment to amend the title also be in- 
cluded in the same amendment. 

The Chairman. The gentleman asks unanimous consent that the 
subcommittee amendments be considered en bloc together with an 
amendment amending the title accordingly upon adoption of the 
bill. 

Air. Moore. A parliamentary inquiry. 

The Chairman. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. Moore. Shall I offer it after this bill has been disposed of? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Is there any objection ? 

Hearing none, so ordered. 

Is there any discussion with respect to the subcommittee amend- 
ments ? 

If not, all those in favor of the subcommittee amendments will 
signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed ? 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the subcommittee 
amendments are agreed to. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Moore. 

Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk to this 
bill. 

The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. Moore. This amendment simply strikes the committee amend- 
ment referring to the Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 
Department of Agriculture, and puts the bill as far as that officer is 
concerned back into the original language of the bill. 

He would not be promoted under my amendment if it is adopted. 

Basically, Mr. Chairman, I have no complaint with the fact that 
someday perhaps this position should receive a promotion that is 
called for in the subcommittee amendment, but I have strong objection 
to doing it now. 

Mr. de la Garza. I neglected to mention this. 

I know the gentleman's concern. The subcommittee agreed that there 
was a possibility that we should do something along these lines. 

I apologize that I neglected to inform you that the upgrading is of 
January 1, 1977, in order that we might not deal with the present 
holders of those positions. 

Whoever would be in those positions on January 1, 1977, would be 
affected at that point. 

I would hope that this would satisfy the gentleman's concern. 

Mr. Moore. I thank the subcommittee chairman for enlightening me 
on this, but it does not satisfy me. There is always a chance that the 
present gentlemen would be there in those positions. 

If you look at the record, inasmuch as he is Administrator of that 
office, it is a poor one. It would be ludicrous at this time to take a man 



240 

who has clone a job which has had nationwide criticism and then pro- 
mote him. 

If you look at the record— there are 21 instances of late deposits 

which cost the Government $13.2 million by his own reports and un- 
confirmed deposits of St; million in the same recent report. This situ- 
ation existed in early L975, but we don't know what report this is that 
was made in February 1976. 

In addition to that, it would be improper Federal guidance and 
instruction to local offices across the country as to how to handle and 
run their activities. 

Quality control reports show they're running about a 46.6-pcreent 
error rate by their own Food and Nutrition Service audits. 

If you look at the testimony of Eugene Senat from Louisiana, he 
pointed out that there was no enforcement to speak of in the Food 
and Nutrition Service. 

In summary, there was no evidence presented. I understand ; and I 
don't think USDA asked for this change, but I understand it came at 
the move of a member o.f the subcommittee. Then USDA wrote back 
and stated that they had no objection. 

I do not believe there has been sufficient hearing or evidence to 
warrant that this office had done a good job — and to warrant its ele- 
vation — not just the man. 

I think until this office changes its actions and until this man 
changes his acts, it would be ludricrous for us to promote these people. 

We kick them upstairs when they have done a bad job. 

I have no objection to the position eventually having the rank Mr. 
Richmond seeks, but I think to do so now is an absolute — it is ridicu- 
lous considering the criticism. 

Mr. Richmond. "Would the gentleman consent to changing his 
amendment to make it possible for the new executive level 5 status to 
come into being, either on January 1, 1977, or when the next adminis- 
trator of the Food and Nutrition Service is chosen ? 

Mr. Moore. T would have to answer no, and I'm not trying to be 
difficult. 

Mr. Richmond. I have a direct, concise letter from the Department 
of Agriculture here. 

I will quote part of it: "Since the Food and Nutrition Service came 
into existence on August 8. 1069, its total program outlays have risen 
from $1 billion in fiscal 1970 to $7.9 billion in fiscal 1976. In this period, 
the employment has increased from 1,747 to 2,534. 

"Thus, we would agree there is justification for upgrading the 
position of Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service." 

Mr. Moore. Mr. Richmond, you are on my time. 

I understand your point, but the point I'm trying to make is this. 

I'm not sure it's just Mr. Heckman's fault. It may be a number of 
people under him. 

Until that department can show us they can do a better job than 
they are doing now, I don't think they merit this kind of promotion. 

It is not a matter of elapsed time. It does have something to do with 
the man who is in office, perhaps, but I believe until he can come back 
and show your subcommittee that they do not have this error rate and 
they do not have this loss of money, but they have in fact started 
enforcing law and have in fact started implementing some regulations 



241 

that will administratively upgrade the program, then it is ridiculous 
to upgrade them. 

I do object, and I do not think your suggestion for an amendment 
to my amendment would satisfy the problem. 

I yield to the gentleman from Florida. 

The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. 

Is there further discussion \ 

Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, we could just about anticipate that if 
we do not accept the amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana, we 
can observe and enact something that will look like this. 

Some campaigner will rattle off all of the ills that have befallen 
the food stamp program and its administration. Then he is going to 
say: "And what do you think Congress did in response to this?" 

The place will be hushed and then he will say: "They gave him a 
raise. They improved his status." 

Everybody will laugh at Congress again. 

I think it is dumb to give anything that looks like approval of what 
has been going on with that administration. 

We are in the process also of undertaking a reexamination of the 
food stamp program. We might do something really intelligent, like 
adopting the Poage suggestion. 

If we do, the program will not be so large and you would not need 
such a lofty position. 

So at best it would seem to be premature at this time to do anything 
to enhance the position of the administrator of the food stamp 
program. 

Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, maybe counsel can 
answer this. 

What is the gentleman's present salary ? 

Mr. Bor. The Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service is 
now a GS-18. His present salary is $37,800. 

The proposal would not change his salary one dollar. What it would 
do would be to change the grade category for the position. 

What is involved here is not a matter of dollars and cents, but 
rather the issue of what grade title should be applied to the position. 

Mr. Berglaxo. Will the gentleman yield on that point? 

Mr. Jox^es of North Carolina. Yes. 

Mr. Bergland. Then what is the purpose? If there is no money 
involved and no change in status, then what is all this about? 

The Chairman. If the gentleman would yield, this involves a change 
in status. Level 5 is a higher grade level within the hierarchv than 
GS-18. 

There has been a compression factor at work which affects executive 
officials of the various Government departments. This arises from the 
tradition that there is a maximum beyond which executive level 
salaries do not go. 

This factor has, until recently held grade 18's to $36,000 a year; 
grade iTs to $36,000 a year; and some grade 16's, I believe, to $36,000 
a year. 

In other words, a ceiling was placed on salaries which cut across 
grades; and the ceiling was reached at lower than the top grade. 

Theoretically, if the situation at some time in the future were 
changed, a <r r ade 5 might make a marginally higher salary than a 
grade 18, since the limitation comes into plav only in the higher levels. 



242 

What we are discussing here is whether you want to increase the 
dignity of the grade rather than the salary. 

Mr. DE la Garza. When you go from the GS to the title, if it doesn't 
have the technical effect, then it has you move from the straight civil 

service to the executive appointee called a title 4. 5, and SO on. 
.Mr. Bekgland. What difference does it make I 

The Administrator under the present law is subject to removal 
without cause at any time by the Secretary or the President, presum- 
ably, lie is what they call a status A appointee. 

In that regard, he would not be changed, would he? Tie is not 
secured by civil service. 

Mr. de la Garza. This would not change that at all. 

Mr. Berglaxd. Thank you. 

Mr. McHugh. It seems to me that the points made by the pro- 
ponents. Mr. Richmond and the subcommittee, and the points made 
by the opponents, including Mr. Moore, are both valid. 

As I understand the purpose of the amendment it is to send a signal 
to the Department of Agriculture that this function should be given 
greater emphasis, greater dignity if you wish, in the Department 
because it deals with an area that is very important and which the 
Department has tended to downgrade. 

This is the same point I tried to make with my amendment to Mr. 
Wampler's agricultural research bill. 

It is true that we are not satisfied with the job that the individual 
who holds that office has performed. I think Mr. Moore has brought 
out a very important point in this regard. 

However, the two positions can be reconciled by our reporting the 
amendment, as written by the subcommittee, to make the point that 
Mr. Richmond and others have tried to make, that is, that this func- 
tion should be given greater emphasis and importance in the Depart- 
ment. 

With regard to Mr. Moore's concern, in the report that accompanies 
the bill it would be important to make clear that by doing this we 
are not affirming the job that has been done by the individual who 
holds the office. And. indeed, there is great dissatisfaction with that 
performance. 

In listening to the debate, I believe the two points of view T are recon- 
cilable. Therefore. I would hope that we could adopt the subcom- 
mittee's bill but make very clear in the report what Mr. Moore and 
others have pointed out. 

Mr. Moore. The gentleman has made an ingenious argument and I 
compliment you. 

I do not think it can be reconciled for the simple reason that some 
of the people under this particular administrator also are at fault: 
like the regional administration. 

I cannot name names and I don't want to name names. 

Suffice it to say, from what we have seen we cannot l>e pleased with 
the performance of that entire division of the Department of Agri- 
culture. 

To elevate that status of that job would be somewhat ludicrous. 

I think it is something that we ought to send a signal to them and 
have them come back and see us next year in the same subcommittee, 
and we will then look at it more carefully. 



243 

I do not believe that you act increased performance when somebody 
has done a bad job and you reward that. 

I think it's the other way around. 

Mr. McHugh. I do not think we should give the impression that that 
is what we are doing. 

If there were any question about that. I would agree with the gen- 
tleman. We can make our intentions very clear in the committee report. 

I yield to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Kelley. 

Mr. Kelly. It is well recognized in our society that a star symbol- 
izes excellence. It starts in grade school and kindergarten. 

It is a part of this record right here in this committee that what we 
are doing is giving this administration a star for its performance in 
light of what the record shows to be the shortcomings. 

That just simply is too inconsistent to make a whole lot of sense. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

The Chairman. Mr. Krebs*? 

Mr. Krebs. Mr. Moore practically took the words out of my mouth. 

I think what this committee should do is make it clear to the De- 
partment that we are dissatisfied with the job which this particular 
officer has done. We should make it very clear that, as soon as the per- 
formance is improved, we will upgrade that position because we feel 
it should be on a par with a similar position dealing with other sub- 
ject matter. 

It seems to me that this is the only rational way of improving the 
performance of that particular administrator. 

If I had my way, I would probably demote the individual in charge 
of the Service ; but, obviously, I cannot do that. 

Mr. Fitiitax. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Louisiana for coming forth with this amendment. 

As Mr. Krebs has just said, if there was some way that we could re- 
duce the. salary and stature of the food stamp administrator, I think 
we'd be better served. 

You will recall that I suggested that this committee <j[et a GAO audit 
of the whole food stamp administration. I still think that is the position 
the committee should be in, but I certainly will not be a party to any 
kind of approbation for the bad job which is being done. 

So, although I don't think Mr. Moore's amendment goes far enough 
to really satisfy me, I will wholeheartedly support it in its present 
form. 

The Chairman. The Chair would like to make a few comments. 

I am distressed that this appears to be the feeling of those mem- 
bers who have spoken. 

Furthermore. I believe that in attempting to determine the struc- 
ture of any element within the executive branch, we would be setting 
an unfortunate precedent. 

Our decisions should in no way be based on who holds the office. 

The Congress, in fact, \s prohibited by the Constitution from pass- 
ing a bill to deny salaries to particular persons in the executive 
branch. Congress has attempted to do this in the past and has been 
found to have exceeded its authority. 

I do not suggest that that is what is being attempted here, but in- 
directly it has the same effect if you pass judgment on the performance 



244 

of an offioe-hokLer while trying to decide what the structure of a par- 
ticular department should be. These are separate issues. 

We could get into the same problem it' we talk aboul creating an 

additional Assistant Secretary. 

[fa member were critical of the way the administration carried out 
any function, he could argue that, by giving them an Assistant 

retary. we would seem to he compliment |ng them on t heir performance. 

If we were to combine the Lasuee of performance and structure, 
every time we talked about upgrading a particular office, the situation 
would become incredibly involved. 

We would be involved in deciding not only whether to make an 
Under Secretary into a Deputy Secretary but also whether we like 
the performance of the department in general, the holder of a specific 
ollice. and the way in which he carries out his responsibility 

It seems to me that if the gentleman from Louisiana doesn't like 
the way the present holder of the office is performing his duties, he 
must submit his complaints to the administration which appoints him. 

For this has nothing to do with the structure of the department 
itself. 

Once we get into the business of deciding questions of organizational 
structure on the basis of who likes the individual who holds an office, 
the entire thing will begin to break down, to become a partisan issue 
not only in terms of politics but on the basis of philosophies and 
approaches to administration. 

We are talking about what the office should be. irrespective of who 
holds it. 

Tf we have to £et back to the individual holders, then in my view, 
what this amounts to is holding a particular agency within a depart- 
ment hostage in an effort to impose upon that department our feel- 
ings as to how they're carrying on their duties. 

This is just as illogical as if someone were to refuse to vote to give 
a Republican administration another Assistant Secretary because he 
was a Democrat. Then if the administration were to change, the other 
side might say the same thing. 

I think this committee must judge all such structural organiza- 
tional proposals in a clinical way, without discussing individuals. 

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana. 

Mr. Moore. T thank the gentleman for yielding. 

T did not initiate this. It came from the USDA. I don't know why 
they sent us the bill if they did not need our permission to do this. 

I think we have a vital input into approving or disapproving what 
the USD A has asked for. 

The Chairman. I agree with that. If you think the Office of the 
Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service should not be a 
grade 5, you ought to vote against it. Tf you are in favor of it, you 
ought to vote for it. We are not acting here to award or withhold stars 
for performance. 

Mr. Moore. T was trying to make that point. 

T think the entire office is not formed well, not just the man. I'm not 
sure it's all his fault. But from testimony before the committee — and 
I think we have evidence before this committee and we've done our 
own $100,000 study and it shows that the office has not performed well, 
not just the man, hut the entire organization. 



245 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Now York stated it well : This 
particular office is responsible for administering nol only the food 
stamp program but all other nutrition programs within the Depart- 
ment, whirl) account for more than half of their outlays. Tf yon feel 
that it is important and deserves more attention and recognition, yon 
shonld vote to upgrade this position. If. on the other hand, you feel 
it is not important or is sufficiently recognized, you are entitled to 
your opinion and should support that position. My own position i- 
that it is important. 

My time has expired. 

Mr. de la Garza. Let me put this into the proper perspective and 
ask for a vote. 

First, the administration — by communication to the chairman — 
requested certain changes. The bill was introduced. 

During the hearings, there being no objection at all to the specific 
request of the administration, our colleague, the gentleman from Xew 
York, Mr. Richmond, suggested, for his own reasons — and he is here 
to further expand on that if necessary — that he wondered why make 
the APHIS upgraded and not the Food and Nutrition Service. 

The subcommittee recessed. After further communication and fur- 
ther hearings, the Department said they had no objection to including 
the Food and Nutrition Service with the APHIS in that upgrading. 

That, very simply, is the bill that the subcommittee brought ont. 
Now, I am concerned that I hear in open hearing here today the ac- 
cusations by the gentleman from Louisiana which have been made 
against an individual. 

These were not made in the subcommittee. The record was made 
there. 

I do not know from where the gentleman received his information. 

I understand by hearsay that some constituent of the gentleman, who 
was in this department, is concerned and so on. I challenge that not. 
That is entirely different and apart from what we are discussing here. 

I just regret that it has deteriorated to a situation of personalities 
and completely separate and apart from the intent of the administra- 
tion and, as I understand it, the intent of Mr. Richmond. 

He wants to upgrade the Food and Nutrition Service. 

I agree with what the chairman just said that, very simply, the 
proper perspective here is that the administration asked for some 
changes. A member of this committee added another one. We now have 
taken one down because of a bill by Mr. AVampler. 

Very simply, that is all that there is. 

Knowing that some question was being made of personalities, the 
subcommittee put a date of January 1, 1977, as the change in upgrad- 
ing in order to put out the question of personalities. 

This then would not be related at all to the question. 

Mr. Poage has advised me that it might be well that we say January 
21, rather than January 1, because by then there will be a change of 
administration. 

I don't mean that in a partisan way, but another administration — 
even if it be the same one — will be in the new term. That is what I 
meant. 



246 

I would like to ask unanimous consent, before we proceed, that Janu- 
ary 1 be made January 21, 1977. I'm talking about the amendment 

adopted by the committee. 

Air. Chairman, it' there will be no object ion, I will yield to the gentle- 
man from Louisiana. 

Mr. Moore. The information I have came from the USDA itself. 

I'm citing a report and statistics which have been put out by the De- 
partment itself. 

I cite the latest quality control report dated June 1075. 

These are not personalities. They are reports in the administration. 

Mr. de la Garza. T have no argument with that. But nobody brought 
it to the subcommittee when we were considering the issue. That is 
what I said. 

I do not know who put out the information. If it was relevant to this 
issue, then it was somebody's responsibility to bring it out at the time 
of the subcommittee hearings. 

The present occupant of the Chair of this subcommittee had no 
knowledge of that and no one apprised him of that. Therefore, that is 
why we find ourselves in this situation today. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas asks unanimous consent 
to revise the subcommittee amendment adopted to substitute for the 
date January 1, 1977, the date January 21, 1977. 

Is there objection? 

Hearing none, so ordered. 

Mr. de la Garza. I move the previous question on the amendment. 
Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas moves the previous ques- 
tion on the amendment. 

All in favor? 

Opposed? 

Will all those in favor of the previous question, raise their right 
hands? 

This is on the previous question only. 

The Clerk. Twenty-one. 

The Chairman. Those opposed ? 

The previous question is ordered. 

All those in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Louisi- 
ana will please raise their right hands. 

Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a rollcall. 

The Chairman. All in favor of the amendment of the gentleman 
from Louisiana will, when their names are called, respond "aye." 

Those opposed will respond "no.'' 

The clerk will call the roll. 

(The rollcall follows:) 

Ayes : Representatives Jones of North Carolina, Krebs, Hightower, English, 
Fithian, Kelly, Grassley, Ilagedorn, Moore. 

Nays : Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Jones of Tennessee, Bergland, 
Brown (by proxy). Breckinridge. Richmond, Nolan, Baldus. Bedell, McHngh, 
Wampler, Jeffords, Foley, Harkin (by proxy), Sjebelius. 

The Chairman. The clerk will report. 
The Clerk. Nine ayes and 16 nays. 

The Chairman. There being 9 ayes and 16 nays, the amendment is 
not agreed to. 



247 

Are there other amendments to this bill ? 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. de la Garza. 

Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee approve 
the bill as amended. I ask unanimous consent that the instructions be 
given to counsel to prepare the proper form. 

The Chairman. The gent leman from Texas moves that the bill II. R. 
10133, as amended, be reported to the House with the recommenda- 
tion that it be passed. 

All those in favor, signify by saying "aye." 

Opposed? 

The ayes appear to have it. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. Moore. 

Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to file dissenting views. 

The Chairman. All members will have that opportunity. 

The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. 

Without objection, the staff will have authority to make purely 
clerical and grammatical corrections in the text in accordance with the 
action taken by the committee; and all members will have 3 calendar 
days to submit their dissenting position or views. 



REA TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee ox Conservation and Credit 

of the Committee on Agriculture, 

'Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, in room 1302, Longworth 
House Office Building, at 2 p.m., Hon. Bob Bergland (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Baldus, English, Richmond, Hightower, 
Madigan, and Jeffords. 

Staff present : Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert M. Bor, coun- 
sel; Steve Pringle and Perry Shaw, staff assistants. 

Mr. Bergland. The Chair notes the absence of a quorum and techni- 
cally we are obliged to have a quorum as we consider these matters. 
I think perhaps what we had best do is adjourn and attempt to re- 
schedule the subcommittee at a time at which we can get a quorum 
present. 

Were you about to say something, Mr. Jeffords ? 

Mr. Jeffords. Not at this time ; if we proceed to mark up the bill. 

Air. Bergland. If there is no objection, then we will proceed to 
consider a bill. The Chair would suggest that we use the bill 
H.R. 12207 which was introduced by myself, Mr. Madigan, Mr. Poage, 
and Mr. Wampler. 

[The bill H.R. 12207 and the U.S. Department of Agriculture re- 
port follow:] 

(249) 



250 



Wth CONGRESS 
2d Session - 



H. R. 1 2207 



IX THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

March 2, 107G 

Mr. "Bf.rgi.axi) (for himself. Mr. Maiuoax, Mr. Poage, and Mr. Wamflee) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Connnittee on 
Agriculture 



A' BILL 

To amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1930, as amended, to 
correct unintended inequities in the interest rate criteria 
for borrowers from the Rural Electrification Administration, 
and to make other technical amendments. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representor 

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That this Act may be cited as the "Rural Electrification 

4 Administration Technical Amendments Act of 1976". 

5 Sec. 2. Section 301 (a) (4) of the Rural Electrification 

6 Act of 1936, as amended, is amended to strike the semicolon 

7 at the end thereof, and add the following: "and the unobli- 

8 srated balances of any funds made available for loans under 

9 the item 'Rural Electrification Administration' in (he Depart- 



251 

1 mcnt of Agriculture and Agriciilturc-Eiivii'omiicntal and Con- 

2 sumcr Protection Appropriations Acts;". 

3 Sec. 3. Section 305 (b) of the Rural Electrification Act 

4 of 193G, as amended, is amended — 

5 (1) by striking tbe words "meets either of the fol- 

6 lowing conditions"; 

7 (2) by striking out all of paragraph (1) thereof 

8 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 

9 "(1) in the case of a telephone borrower, has an 

10 average subscriber density of three or fewer per mile;"; 

11 (3) b} T striking out all of paragraph (2) thereof 

12 through and including the words" "telephone borrowers" 

13 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 

14 " (2) in the case of an electric borrower, has an 

15 average consumer density of two or fewer per mile or 

16 for which the ratio obtained by dividing the sum of its 

17 distribution plant and general plant hy its annual gross 

18 revenue less cost of power exceeds 9.0 for the most 

19 recent calendar year for which all such information is 

20 available. As used in this subsection the sum of distribu- 

21 tion plant and general plant shall be the total of the 

22 amounts shown in accounts numbered 3G0 through and 

23 including 399 of the uniform system of accounts ap- 

24 proved, as of tbe effective date of this amendment, by 

25 the Administrator, for use bv Rural Electrification Ad- 



BS2 

1 ministration borrowers; gross revenue shall be the 

2 amount shown in account numbered 400 of said system 

3 of accounts; and the cost of power shall be the total of 

4 amounts shown in accounts numbered 500 through and 

5 including 573 of said s} T stem of accounts as the same 

6 is constituted ,, ; 

7 (4) by inserting the words "to a telephone or 

8 electric borrower'' following the words "make a loan" 

9 in the proviso to paragraph (2) thereof. 









253 




DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 
WASHINGTON D C 20250 

March ] 7, 3976 

Honorable Thomas S. Foley 
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture 
House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This is in reply to your request for a report on H.R. 12206 and H.R. 12207, 

bills to correct unintended inequities in the interest rate criteria for 

borrowers from the Rural Electrification Administration and to make other 

technical amendments. These bills are identical except for minor differ- 
ences in the titles and in the preambles. 

This Department recommends such legislation be enacted, preferably with 
an additional modification as discussed herein. These bills represent 
modifications of the legislation submitted by the Administration in 
September 1975 and introduced as H.R. 12195. 

All three bills provide for the transfer of the unobligated balance of 
the Rural Electrification Administration Appropriation for fiscal year 
1973 to the Rural Electrification and Telephone Revolving Fund. Using 
the Revolving Fund, an off-budget entity, for loans and advances instead 
of making such loans and advances under Sec. 4 and Sec. 201 of the Rural 
Electrification Act would prevent a corresponding increase in the Federal 
budgetary deficit without depriving REA electric and telephone borrowers 
of the use of these funds, subject to any limitations imposed by the 
Congress for loans to be made in any one year. 

All three bills also eliminate the revenue per mile criteria for determining 
eligibility for 2 percent financing. These criteria were largely instru- 
mental in increasing the number of electric borrowers eligible for 2 percent 
loans from 181, or 19.5 percent of the total in fiscal year 1973, to 300, or 
32.3 percent in fiscal year 1976; and the number of telephone borrowers so 
eligible from 191, or 23.4 percent of the total in fiscal year 1973, to 
350, or 41.2 percent in fiscal year 1976. In addition, H.R. 12206 and 
H.R. 12207 propose other changes in the criteria for 2 percent loans not 
considered in the Administration bill. 

Under these bills, telephone borrowers with three or fewer subscribers per 
mile, instead of two or fewer per mile, would become eligible for 2 percent 
financing. This change would make 177 of the present borrowers eligible 
for such financing, a decrease of 14 from the number eligible in fiscal 
year 1973 and of 173 from the 350 currently eligible. 



254 



Honorable Thomas S. Foley 



For electric borrowers, the change is in the form of an additional alter- 
nate test - the ratio of general and distribution plant investment to 
revenue less cost of power. A borrower would be eligible for the special 
rate if the ratio of this plant to revenue was greater than nine. Under 
either the density test, which remains at two or fewer, or the plant to 
revenue test, 196 electric borrowers would be eligible for 2 percent 
loans. This number of borrowers is very near the 19.5 percent of all 
borrowers eligible for the special rate at the time Congress passed the 
legislation creating the Revolving Fund. It represents a decrease of 
104 from the 300 currently eligible. 

If the plant to revenue test is enacted, we strongly recommend using a 
simple average of the ratio for the three preceding years to determine 
eligibility. We believe that this would provide a more stable test by 
reducing the effects of delaying rate increases. 

We also believe it would be desirable to clarify the phrase "for which 
all such information is available." To provide adequate time for the 
receipt of accurate reports and at the same time avoid delays in completing 
the processing of applications on hand, a uniform date about six months 
after the close of the calendar year should be established for determining 
eligibility based on new annual data. Sec. 305 of the Rural Electrification 
Act could be further modified as indicated in the attachment to achieve 
this result. 

Set forth below for five fiscal years is a projection of savings resulting 
from enactment of the proposed legislation, in millions of dollars: 

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Total 



Electric 1.5 4.7 9.5 14.3 19.0 49.0 
Telephone 1.2 3.6 6.6 9.6 10.5 31.5 

Total 2.7 8.3 16.1 23.9 29.5 80.5 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to 
the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program. 

Sincerely, 



*S .Tnhn 




John A . !snebeJ 
Act It, r ^ecrei^rT 



Attachment 



255 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



Proposed Modification of Sec. 3 in 
H.R. 12206 and H.R. 12207 



SEC. 3. Section 305(b) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as 
amended, is amended — 

(1) by striking the words "an electric or telephone borrower which 
meets either of the following conditions:" 

(2) by striking out all of paragraph (1) thereof and inserting in lieu 
thereof the following: 

"(1) a telephone borrower which had, at the end of the most recent 
calendar year ending at least six months before approval of the loan, 
an average subscriber density of three or fewer per mile." 

(3) by striking out all of paragraph (2) thereof and including in lieu 
thereof the following: 

"(2) an electric borrower which had at the end of the most recent 
calendar year ending at least six months before approval of the loan 
an average consumer density of two or fewer per mile or an average 
adjusted plant revenue ratio of over 9.0, such ratio being a simple 
average of the ratios obtained by dividing the sum of its distribution 
plant and general plant by its annual gross revenue less cost of power 
for that calendar year and the two immediately preceding calendar years. 
As used in this subsection the sum of distribution plant and general 
plant shall be the total of the amounts shown in accounts numbered 360 
through and including 399 of the Uniform System of Accounts approved, 
as of the effective date of this amendment, by the Administrator, for 
use by Rural Electrification Administration borrowers; gross revenue shall 



256 



be the amount shown in account numbered 400 of said system of accounts; 
and the cost of power shall be the total of amounts shown in accounts 
numbered 500 through and including 573 of said system of accounts as the 
same is constituted." 

(4) by adding a new paragraph (3) as follows: 

"(3) a telephone or electric borrower, when the Administrator, in 
his sole discretion, finds that the borrower: 

(A) has experienced extenuating circumstances or extreme 
hardship; or 

(B) cannot, in accordance with generally accepted management 
and accounting principles, produce net income or margins before 
interest at least equal to 150 per centum of its total interest 
requirements on all outstanding and proposed loans with an 
interest rate greater than 2 per centum per annum on the entire 
current loan, and still meet the objectives of the Act, or 

(C) cannot, in accordance with generally accepted management 
and accounting principles and without an excessive increase in 
the rates charged by such borrowers to their consumers or 
subscribers, provide service consistent with the objectives of 
the Act." 



257 

Mr. Bergland. This is the bill to which the administration alluded 
and to which they had suggested a couple of changes. 

We will consider ILK. 12207. The Chair would state thai the bill 
is open to amendment at any point. We would like to remind the com- 
mittee that the administration had one, I believe, legislation recom- 
mendation. The other perhaps could be handled in the committee 
report language. 

The administration's recommendation, while I cannot find the pre- 
cise amendment, did suggest that we change the bill in one regard. 
That would appear on page 2, line 10. and would install a moving 
3-year average in the plant-revenue ratio that the bill proposes. 

Do members have any comments on that, any suggestions, any 
recommendations? Do we leave it like it is or do we want to consider 
what they suggested? 

Br. Baldus. You would have to start on line 18, would you not, 
where it says "most recent calendar year"? 

Mr. Bergland. Yes, I think so. 

I would like to ask counsel whether or not we have language, the 
administration language. 

Air. Bor. Yes. It is in the letter they addressed to the committee 
dated March 17. 

Mr. Bergland. I have not seen that letter. It has proposed a modifi- 
cation of that subsection 2 of section 3 which appears starting on 
line 14. May I read what the Department has recommended? 

They would strike that item 2 in its entirety and replace it with 
the following: ". . . an electric borrower which had at the end of 
the most recent calendar year ending at least 6 months before approval 
of the loan an average consumer density of two or fewer per mile 
or an average adjusted plant revenue ratio of over 9. such ration 
being a simple average of the ratios obtained by dividing the sum of 
its distribution plant and general plant by its annual gross revenue 
less cost of power for that calendar year and the two immediately 
preceding calendar years." 

Then it goes on adopting the language in the bill as it appears on 
line 20. The net eifect of this would be to install a rolling 3-year aver- 
age in arriving at these plant-revenue ratios and installing a 6-month 
time lead after the calendar year closed. 

Is there any comment on this proposal, any suggestions, any 
amendments? 

Air. Baldus. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Bergland. Mr. Baldus. 

Mr. Baldtjs. I understand Ave are in markup session but I see many 
of the people who were here before and testified on the full bill. 

By nods of approval or disapproval, would you say that you are 
aware of this contemplated amendment and is there any concern on 
your part about it? 

[Nods.] 

Air. Baldus. With that, Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the 
amendment. 

Air. Bergland. The gentleman from Wisconsin has moved that 
the bill, IT. B. 12207. be amended in conformity with the advice offered 
by the administration with respect to amending subsection 2 of sec- 
tion 3 of the bill. 



258 

Is there any discussion on the proposition I 
| No response. ] 

Mr. Berglaxd. Those in favor of the amendment offered bj the 
gentleman from Wisconsin signify by saying aye. 

[ Chorus of ayes. | 

Mr. Berglaxd. Those opposed say no. 

| No response.] 

Mi-. Berglaxd. The amendment is adopted unanimously. 

Are there any other amendments to the bill? 

[ No response.] 

Mr. Berglaxd. The Chair notes that we now have a quorum. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Madigan, moves that the bill be 
reported with a recommendation for due passage. All those in favor 
say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Mr. Berglaxd. Will those opposed say no? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Berglaxd. The ayes have it and the bill is so reported. 

Mr. Bor. Mr. Chairman, may the staff have authority to make 
clerical changes that might be necessary to conform the amendments 
with the balance of the bill ? 

Mr. Berglaxd. Is there objection to that request ? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Berglaxd. The Chair hears none and the staff will be directed 
to make such technical changes as are necessary to conform to the 
administration's proposals. 

From a procedural point of view, we have amended this bill. It is 
not necessary to reintroduce a clean bill, obviously. We can amend 
it and it can be reported to the full committee as amended. 

The Chair will make an arrangement with Mr. Foley and the full 
committee in an attempt to have this matter brought to the full com- 
mittee's attention at the earliest possible moment. In view of the fact 
that there is no controversy surrounding this, I think the chairman 
may accommodate us at an early date. 

The Chair would like to inform the members of the subcommittee 
that it would be my plans to request this bill be put on the suspension 
calendar. 

Is there any other business to come before the subcommittee at this 
time? 

Mr. ExGLisn. We will meet on Friday, is that right? 

Mr. Berglaxd. This subcommittee will meet this Friday afternoon 
at 2 o'clock to consider the issue of weather modification. The ques- 
tion has arisen from time to time as to whether or not cloud seeding 
and the attempts to induce rain or stop it are in the national interest 
and. if they are, is there something the Congress can do. 

Mr. Hightower. Mr. Chairman, do you know whether or not the 
House will be in session Friday? 

Mr. Berglaxd. I am informed Ave will be but I think that is rather 
tentative. 

Mr. Prix-ole. I think I was mistaken about that. The committee 
will meet Friday morning. 

Mr. Berglaxd. The Chair stands corrected. 

We stand adjourned until Friday morning at 10 o'clock. 

[Whereupon, at 3 : 45 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned.] 



REA TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS 



THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1976 

House of Representatives, 
Committee ox Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met at 10: 15 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301, 
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chair- 
man) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of 
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Mathis, Bergland, Rose, Breck- 
inridge, Richmond, Nolan, Weaver, Baldus, Krebs, Harkin, High- 
tower, Bedell, McHugh, Fithian, Jenrette, Wampler, Sebelius, Thone, 
Symms, Johnson, Madigan, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn, and Moore. 

Staff present : Fowler C. West, staff director ; Robert M. Bor, and 
Hyde H. Murray, counsels; John E. Hogan, associate counsel; Glenda 
Temple, Steve Pringle, and John Lindley, staff assistants; James A. 
Culver, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Dairy and Poultry; Weldon 
Barton, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and 
Consumer Relations; Leighton Lang, staff consultant, Subcommittee 
on Oilseeds and Rice; Charlotte Farwell, staff consultant, Subcom- 
mittee on Tobacco; Gerry Jorgensen, staff consultant. Subcommittee 
on Department Operations, Investigations, and Oversight. 

The committee meets this morning to consider H.R. 12207 by Mr. 
Bergland for himself, Mr. Madigan, Mr. Poage, and Mr. Wampler. 
The bill would amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as 
amended, to correct unintended inequities in the interest rate criteria 
for borrowers from the Rural p]lectrification Administration, and 
make other technical changes. 

H.R. 12207 was reported from the Subcommittee on Conservation 
and Credit ; and without objection, the bill will be considered as read 
and printed in the record. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Bergland. 

Mr. Bergland. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill with the amendments which are inserted 
is the product of a compromise and has been endorsed by the admin- 
istration and by the borrowers, both electric and telephone. It is, I 
think, as has been described, a technical bill in that it does not really 
deal with any substantive policy change governing the lending au- 
thorities of the REA. 

It has two functions : 

One, it transfers moneys which were unobligated as of December 
1972, on the direct lending program and those monevs amount to $455 
million and provided $366 million for the electrics and $89 million for 
the telephone side — to be transferred into the revolving fund. 

(259) 



260 

This is a purely technical change which the Administration agrees 
makes sense. 

It docs change, in a policy way. the eligible borrowers for the 2- 
percent authority provided by law. 

In fact, it reduces the number of eligible borrowers. 

When the last act of (Tongfe^s to amend the IJEA wa- considered in 
1973, we established criteria governing eligibility for both electric and 
telephone borrower- and established as a criteria for the 2-percent 
funding, borrowers who had three coihiinifi^ or fewer per mile and 
who had a revenue which was more than $450 per consumer less than 
the national average. 

At that time, that formula was considered to be fair and reasonable 
and would limit the 2-percent funding to those borrowers who truly 
could establish a need. 

At that time, there Were 181 electric and 191 telephone borrowers 
who were eligible. 

Due to changes in the economic circumstances since that time, the 
eligible borrowers in the electric field has now risen to 300 and the 
telephone borrowers has risen to -'$76. 

The problem, of course, is that this means we have more borrowers 
eligible bidding for a limited amount of money and dividing the two 
means that no borrower is able to get what is needed and. indeed, then 
are borrowers who are netting 2-percent funding that T think no one 
could defend. 

The bill would change eligibility in that regard and would reduce in 
the electric field the numbers of borrowers currently at 300 down to 
196. or thereabouts. 

The telephone borrowers would be reduced from 370 down to 177. 

This is done by eliminating revenue criteria for the telephone bor- 
rowers and increasing the consumer density from two to three per mile. 

Tn the electric field, we maintained the density criteria of two con- 
sumers per mile, but eliminate the revenue criteria and installed in lieu 
thereof a ratio known as the plant revenue ratio where they take the 
sum of the investment in the plant and divide it by the revenue after 
power costs are deducted. 

Tf they have a ratio of more than nine, they qualify. 

This. Mr. Chairman, is a complicated formula that has been agreed 
to bv both "RE A and the electric borrowers as being a good guide to 
limit the 2-percent funding to those borrowers who clearly can estab- 
lish a financial need. 

That summarizes the proposition. 

I would attempt to respond to any questions that may arise. 

The Ottatrmax. Thank you. Mr. Bergland. 

A re there any questions ? 

Mr. Weaver? 

Mr. \Veaver. Can the low-cost interest rate funds be used to finance 
nuclear plants? 

Mr. Bergland. Can the 2-percent moneys be used to finance the con- 
struction of nuclear powerplants? 

The answer is technically yes. "Rut in actual practice, they do not. 

It is limited to distribution facilities. 

Counsel has indicated disagreement, 

Mr. Murray. The G. & T. loans can be made for nuclear facilities — 
and in some instances, they have already been made, I believe. 



261 

Mr. Bergland. Transmission loans. But the gentleman's question has 
to do with the 2-percent funding — whether or not the 2-percent money 
will go to nuclear powerplants. 

Mr. Murray. As a practical matter, it does not ; but from a strictly 
legal and technical side, it could. 

There was a great deal of controversy about whether the generating 
and transmitting coops would be eligible for the 2-percent money, 
when we had the conference report on this legislation was debated. 

It is clear that they are not automatically excluded from eligibility. 

However, they do have to meet the other tests before they can 
qualify. 

Mr. Weaver. I asked, at the time last year of the general oversight 
hearings, and the answer was yes. 

Mr. Bergland. The REA has financed nuclear power plants but 
not from this fund. It is a limited amount of money and used to finance 
distribution borrowers who are operating in areas which are sparsely 
populated or have low incomes and are, therefore, unable to charge 
the kinds of rates which would otherwise be necessary to make it a 
paying proposition at higher rates of interest. 

Mr. Weaver. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Bergland. Billions of dollars are required by the generating 
industry and are not taken from this fund. 

Thev are, for the most part, privately funded. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bedell? 

Mr. Bedell. How much money are we talking about in this fund 
roughly — per year of borrowing ? 

Mr. Bergland. Can counsel help me ? 

Mr. Bedell. I don't have to have it exact. 

Mr. Bor. In the letter from the USDA, it sets out the projection of 
savings that would result from enactment of this legislation and they 
project for fiscal year 1977 that there would be savings somewhere in 
the neighborhood of $2.7 million. 

It would increase annually thereafter. For 1978, the savings would 
be over $8 million; for 1979. over $16 million; for 1980, over $23 
million. 

Mr. Bergland. We can supply for the record the exact amounts of 
money which are involved here. 

Mr. Murray. The Department is here, and they have the figures of 
the total program le\ T el. Is that what you are interested in? 

Mr. Bedell. Yes. How much we are going to be loaning next year. 

1 would like it within 20 percent. It doesn't have to be exact. 

Mr. Askegard. I am David Askegard, Deputy Administrator of 
REA. 

The proposal for the budget for electric-insured loans is $750 mil- 
lion for next year; for telephone-insured loans, $250 million. 

The telephone bank is not involved in this authority. 

Mr. Bergland. How is that amount divided between the 5-percent 
and 2-percent rate ? Approximately ? 

Mr. Askegard. It would be about 20 percent in each case in most 
electric and telephone programs. It would depend upon which bor- 
rowers submitted applications. 

Mr. Bergland. So it would be about $150 million in the electric area 
at 2 percent and about $40 to $50 million in the telephone area at 

2 percent. 



262 

Mr. Ask i. card. Yes. 

Mr. Poage. I think we ought to understand that this doesn't mean 
spending these big sums in addition to what we are now authorising. 

That's your total expenditure for the program — only a very small 
part of it is involved in the 2-percent loan. 

In the next place, this decreases, not increases, the number of 2- 
percent loans which can he made. 

The result is that it decreases, not increases, the amount of cheap 
money. 

When you are talking about $1 million, you are talking about the 
REA program. You are not talking about what is involved in this 
bill. 

What is involved in this bill, is, I believe, only seven or eight 

Mr. Chairman, you had the figures there a moment ago. That is, 
the figures of those who are now eligible and the figures of those who 
will be eligible when we <rei through with it. 

Mr. Bkrglaxd. Mr. Chairman, in the electric area at the present 
time, there are 300 borrowers eligible for 2-percent money. This bill 
would reduce that to 196. 

Mr. Poage. That is almost one-third of the 2-percent money. It 
reduces the 2-percent money by almost one-third. 

So to get the idea that we're talking about spending an extra billion 
dollars here is misleading. 

What we are talking about is reducing the amount of 2-percent 
money which is available. 

The reason we are doing it is that there is not enough money to go 
around to everybody. The change in economic conditions lias made 
many people eligible for 2-percent money who we never dreamed — 
3 or 4 years ago — would be eligible for 2-percent money. 

We are bringing this down to just about the number of coopera- 
tives that we anticipated in 1973. 

All we are trying to do here is to maintain the stability — not to 
increase the amount of money. 

We decreased the amount. 

The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Cali- 
fornia, Mi-. Krebs. 

Mr. Krebs. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my question 
to the vice chairman. When you say that the amount of money is 
decreased, you do not mean that we are decreasing the amount of 
money but rather the number of borrowers. That is different. 

Mr. Poage. Yes. 

We do not know the amount of money of course. 

We do not know how T much these particular co-ops may come in and 
seek to borrow. 

But we are authorizing no new money. We are transferring certain 
moneys in the bill, but we are authorizing no new money. 

And we are reducing the number of cooperatives who are eligible 
for 2-percent money. 

Those same cooperatives are still eligible for the 5-percent money. 

Theoretically it may not affect the total amount loaned at all. 

It could be a situation where there would not be any change in the 
total amount of money loaned, but it does change the interest rate for 
certain cooperatives and it reduces the number of cooperatives who 
can get the preferred interest rate. 



263 

Mr. Krebs. Thank you. 

Mr. Bedell. There is about 20 percent of it — or $200 million — 
which qualifies for 2-percent money. 

Does the rest of it qualify for 5-percent money \ 

Mr. Berglaxd. That is correct. In addition to that, they have access 
to the farm credit system as cooperatives, they have loans which are 
made by the telephone bank. The electrics have their own cooperative 
financing — organization. 

Those rates of interest are commercial. 

The Chairman. Mr. Baldus? 

Mr. Baldus. I have a question of counsel. 

As I recall at the subcommittee hearing, there were a number of 
appearances. There were no appearances in opposition to the bill. 

All of the appearances were in favor of the bill. Is that correct? 

Mi-. Berglaxd. That is correct. 

There was no opposition at the hearings. 

I received no opposition from anybody since the hearings were 
held and the committee reported the bill. 

Mr. Baldus. That is useful information for the committee to have. 

Mr. Hogan. Mr. Chairman, the REA officials indicated that there 
would be at least $100 million reduction in the amount of 2-percent 
money which would be made available. So we will have that figure 
available for the report, but that would be a minimum figure as I 
understand it. 

The Chairman. Are there any amendments to the bill? 

Mr. Berglaxd. I move 

The Chairman. Before the gentleman does that, can we have the 
subcommittee amendments reported? 

Mr. Berglaxd. There were two committee amendments which were 
adopted by the subcommittee at the behest of the administration. 

Thev are found on the flysheet inserted in the bill. 

Will counsel explain them in some detail? 

Mr. Bor. The question came up as to what time period would be 
used for determining the new criteria for 2-percent loans. 

The subcommittee decided to amend the bill to provide that the 
time period would be the calendar year ending at least 6 months 
before approval of the loan. 

The same time period was used for both telephone loans and elec- 
tric loans. 

The other change that was made deals only with the electric loans. 

It provides that the criteria of the ratio of adjusted— that is. the 
average adjusted plant revenue ratio — should be based upon a period 
of not just 1 year, but a 3-year period. 

That was the second amendment which was included. 

The Chairmax. Is there any discussion of the first subcommittee 
amendment? 

Mr. Berglaxd. I move its adoption. 

The CirAnnrAx. The gentleman from Minnesota moves the adoption 
of the first committee amendment. 

All in favor signify by saying aye, those opposed, nay. 

The ayes have it, and the first committee amendment is adopted. 

Is there anv discussion on the second amendment? 

Mr. Berglaxd. I move its adoption. 



264 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Minnesota moves t he adoption 
of the second amendment. 

All in favor signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed ! 

The ayes have it. and the second committee amendment is adopted. 

Are there other amendments to the bill \ 

Mr. Poage. Mr. Chairman, 1 think I should say this. 

Some members anticipated that there would be an amendment of- 
fered here relating to the generating plants. That will not be offered 
because the last figures produced by the REA — and I understand they 
wore only produced yesterday — indicate that that would bring m zti 
cooperatives which we had not anticipated would come in 

Inasmuch as that would change the nature of the program and 
might bring about the opposition of the Bureau of Budget, we felt 
it was not wise to offer that amendment. 

But I did not want the members who might have understood that 
such an amendment would be offered to feel that it had been 
overlooked. 

It is simply that we want to see the measure move on expeditiously, 
and we do not want to get into something we did not expect. 

The revised figures from the REA bring in a great many more — 
that is, would make that amendment bring in a great many more 
cooperatives — than we had anticipated that it would. ■ 

So it will not be offered. 

Mr. Berglaxd. I want to compliment all parties in interest to this 
proposition — both the borrowers and the administration — for making 
concessions and working out agreements in this fashion. 

We all realize that a great need exists and everybody has given some- 
thing in this regard. From this we will have a product of which we can 
be proud. 

My question is this. 

I would suggest that this propostion be put on the suspension 
calendar. 

It is not controversial as far as I know. We can eliminate a lot of 
time. 

Would the best process here be to strike everything after the enact- 
ing clause and insert therein in lieu thereof the committee amendment 
as amended? 

Mr. Bor. It really does not make any difference. Mr. Bergland. if 
we go on the suspension calendar. But it may be easier to follow the 
bill if it all flows together as would be the case if the amendment 
were adopted as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Mr. Berglaxd. I think it would. 

The Chairman] The gentleman from Minnesota moves that the 
committee strike evervthmg after the enacting clause and substitute 
therefor the text of the bill, including the committee amendments 
adopted by the committee. 

All those in favor will signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed ? 

The ayes have it. and the motion is agreed to. 

Is there other discussion on tho bill? 

Mr. Berglaxd. I move the bill be reported with a recommendation 
that it be passed. 



265 

The Chairman. The gentleman from Minnesota moves that the bill 
be reported to the House for recommendation and to be passed. 

All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. 

Opposed ? 

The ayes have it. The bill, therefore, will be reported favorably to 
the House, and the record will show that a quorum is present. 

Mr. Harkin. I ask for a recorded vote. 

The Chairman. All in favor of the motion of the gentleman from 
Minnesota that the vote be reported favorably to the House will re- 
spond aye, or nay, if opposed. 

(The rollcall follows:) 

Ayes : Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of North Carolina, 
Jones of Tennessee, Mathis, Bergland, Brown (by proxy), Rose, Richmond, 
Baldus, Krebs, Harkin, Hightower, Bedell, McHugh, English (by proxy), Fithian, 
Jenrette, Thornton (by proxy), Wampler, Sebelius, Findley (by proxy), Thone, 
Symms, Johnson (by proxy), Madigan (by proxy), Heckler (by proxy), Kelly, 
Grassley, Hagedorn, Moore (by proxy), Foley. 

Nays : None. 

The Chairman. The clerk will report the results of the rollcall. 

The Clerk. Thirty- three ayes, no nays, and 26 members were present 
and voting. 

The Chairman. There being 33 ayes, no nays, and 26 Members vot- 
ing and present, the bill is reported favorably to the House in the 
presence of a quorum. 

It is the Chair's intention, without objection, to ask the leadership 
to schedule this bill on the suspension calendar. 

It has the support of the administration and, I think, would be ap- 
propriate for the suspension calendar. 

The Chair also wishes to note that this is the last time one of the 
very valuable and hard-working members of the committee staff will 
be present to assist with legislation. Mr. Steve Pringle is leaving the 
committee to accept a position in his native State of Texas. 

He has served the committee in many ways, particularly with refer- 
ence to this and other legislation of the Subcommittee on Conservation 
and Credit. 

I want to express our appreciation for your services. 

[Applause.] 

[The committee proceeded to consider other business.] 

O 



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 



3 1262 09113 0848